Apologetical Weapons: Projection Manifests a Conviction of Personal Evil

It is a commonplace of neoreactionary and reactionary discourse that Social Justice Warriors always project. Once you’ve digested a Red Pill, in respect to any domain of life, you cannot help but notice this phenomenon. No one in the modern West is as hateful as the haters of haters; no one in the modern West is as blind to his own hatred.

It is worth remembering, then, that as Jung first developed the notion of projection from his own vast clinical experience, projection is of those traits that people most abhor in themselves. It arises from their deep conviction of their own personal evil. What we most hate in others then is – so Jung found – a pretty reliable indication of what we hate in ourselves, but would rather not confess to ourselves, or of course a fortiori to anyone else.

Excursus: Yet another demonstration of the profound psychospiritual efficacy of the Sacramental Rite of Confession and Reconciliation.

Racism is perhaps the most popular projective epithet du jour. What does this tell us? It tells us that Social Justice Warriors know at some deep level that they engage in racial stereotyping, and that they feel guilty for so doing. Not consciously, of course. Or not very consciously, anyway. But they know they are doing it, they know they are making decisions on the basis of such evaluations – i.e., they know they are *discriminating* – and they feel bad about the whole thing.

Excursus: What’s fascinating to me is that illiberals of all races seem by contrast rather careless of race, and much more cheerful. They are far more ready to admit racial differences, and also *to feel relaxed about them,* in rather the same way that they feel relaxed about gravity or bipedalism. It’s just not a big deal for them.

You can’t be true friends with someone if you are not able to admit your differences to each other, or especially to yourselves. Differences are in a sense a basis of friendship.

We could with but little trouble extend such observations to many of the liberal shibboleths: sexism, Islamophobia, transphobia, homophobia, you name it. Even hatred of climate change deniers is amenable to this sort of analysis: SJWs are worried about *their own* contribution to the supposed death of the planet – about their own inherent evil – and so they worry that they ought to kill themselves, but they cannot help the fact that they *don’t want to die,* so *they themselves are doubly evil.* A terrifying thought. Because the evil *deserve death.* They themselves might be worthy scapegoats, fit for the sacrificial pyre! O no!

But let’s stick with racism.

What’s the apologetical weapon?

“Why are you so angry about racism?”

That’s really it. Whatever your interlocutor answers, your response is simple: “How come you are so angry about that?”

Keep asking that question to every response he gives. You may need to vary your response to this or that explanation of why racially informed evaluations are so profoundly wrong, as:

“OK, I get that; but, why does that make you so *angry*?”

If you keep at it, gently, without the slightest indication of controversion of anything he is saying – you are not arguing with him, but rather only seeking understanding – eventually the truth will out. If you are not fighting with him, it can’t be about you, or your ilk. It can and will turn out to be only about him.

That is likely to be especially painful for him. You must then be with him so, so very gentle. You must be to him the Good Samaritan, to him who has his whole life been beaten, to dereliction, weakness, fault, fear, unconsciousness – indeed, *willed* unconsciousness. You must remember that your enemies, your ultimate enemies – the demons – are his enemies, too. You must muster, and feel, and show, compassion for him.

Ideally, you should at that moment pray for him. Do not omit to pray for yourself, and for a proper humility.

Then, you can say something like this: “What would it look like for you if you didn’t need to worry about that anymore?” And then, you should shut up, so that the soft harmless question can sink deeply in.

And that will engage his visualization engine in constructing a picture of what life would be like if he could stop worrying about race. It will, in other words, engage him in thinking about what life could be like if he could go ahead and be realistic about racial differences, the way that normal people of all races have always been. The thought might occur to him for the first time consciously (although not unconsciously): “What if the races are different, *and that’s OK*?”

That vision is bound to seem to him a tremendous relief, from anxieties that have bedeviled him for years.

All good, right?

I hasten to add that I do not myself think in terms of races. I think rather in terms of nations. The comfortable Swedes are much different than those flinty Norwegians, e.g. Anyone can see it, who has two neurons to rub together …

28 thoughts on “Apologetical Weapons: Projection Manifests a Conviction of Personal Evil

  1. Pingback: Apologetical Weapons: Projection Manifests a Conviction of Personal Evil | Reaction Times

  2. Racism is perhaps the most popular projective epithet du jour. What does this tell us? It tells us that Social Justice Warriors know at some deep level that they engage in racial stereotyping, and that they feel guilty for so doing. Not consciously, of course….they know they are discriminating – and they feel bad about the whole thing.

    Um…is this supposed to be a revelation? Look, I՚m actually not a big fan of the SJW type, but I can say with confidence that they are generally very aware of their own unconscious racism. It is a foundational principle that racism is built into the culture and everyone is tinged with it, the only difference between an SJW and a stone racist is one fights against this tendency while the other gives in to it.

    “How come you are so angry about that?”

    How come you aren՚t angry about racism?

    SJWs have this concept of “privilege”, and I have to say you present as a textbook example. I am guessing you aren՚t angry about racism because you have never been a victim of it and can՚t imagine yourself being the victim of it, and for whatever reason don՚t feel empathy for the people who are in less privileged positions. You are so cosseted you apparently can՚t even imagine how it is for other people who might have perfectly valid reasons for their anger.

    This indicates either a degree of innocence usually reserved to very young children and the mentally handicapped, or disingenuousness. Or perhaps it՚s ideological blindness. Yes, I՚d go with that, if only out of friendship. The other explanations sound insulting, but you can՚t help being the prisoner of your ideas.

    And btw: It՚s nice that you want to relieve people of their anger, which is a generally harmful emotion. But actually doing so requires understanding its sources.I think your techniques will make people more angry — certainly has that effect on me.

    • How can a person be “very aware” of his own *unconscious* racism? Smells like Pharisaical false consciousness, put on for hypocritical show – even if only in the theater of the SJW’s own mind: “Thank *God* I am not like those racist white *Republicans.*” *Such* a relief. *So* much more comfortable. “I *hate* my inherent white racism, so that makes me a good person, unlike those horrible white people who don’t seem particularly worried about their hatred of other races.”

      It wouldn’t be possible to worry so much over whether one was a good person unless one knew at some deep level that one was not. People who frankly acknowledge their sinfulness are not worried about whether they are good; they *know* they are not good. That allows them to repent and amend their lives, here and there, bit by bit, at the margin. But all that’s mostly a Christian thing, so it’s more prevalent on the Right than on the Left. Conservatives are *far* more charitable than liberals. They tip better, too. And because they are not so torn up inside with guilt over their hidden sins, they are more relaxed and cheerful, about *everything.* Including race.

      You know what? I am *not* particularly worried about my hatred of other races. Why? *I don’t feel any such hatred.* It’s not in me.

      *Of course* I am a victim of racism. I am a member of the only race it is these days politically correct for everyone to abhor: Europeans. Have you really not noticed this? I’ve been attacked and beaten several times on account of my race, by members of another. With sticks. As law enforcement officers of that same race looked on and chuckled.

      I never got a handout of any sort; they all did, in spades, of resources taken forcibly from me and people like me.

      Privilege, my ass. I started out dirt poor, the son of a preacher who was also dirt poor and also worked hard his whole life. I did dishes, chopped wood, worked as a laborer and a shipping clerk. I worked my butt off for decades to get where I am. Have I been lucky? Sure: the harder I work, the luckier I get. That’s my money, that I worked like hell to earn, that’s been taken from me and given to others. Some privilege. Take my “privilege” and shove it where the sun don’t shine. You are welcome to it.

      The reason I am not angry about what the SJW’s are pleased these days to call racism is that it consists mostly in harmless and quite natural discrimination between what people prefer and what they don’t. People discriminate this way all the time. Such discrimination is essential to society (viz., you couldn’t have a family without discriminating against those not in it, in favor of those within it). It can’t be eliminated. Whether we like it or not, people will always form and act upon stereotypes, and will always like some sorts of people more than others. There’s no point in getting angry about this fact, any more than there is a point in getting angry about the weather (something else that the Left has been doing).

      Vicious racism – you know, the stuff that used to be called racist back in the 60’s, that actually harms people – is on the other hand of course problematic. I don’t like it, and I’ve never engaged in it, nor would I. Because why? Because imago dei. But there just isn’t that much vicious racism around these days – among whites, anyway. And there is a lot less of it on the Right than on the Left.

      If you haven’t noticed that either, then I can’t help you; you are living in a different universe, and do not know anyone who is actually on the Right. To us on the Right, it is *obvious* that it is the Left that is morbidly obsessed with race.

      I hate to say it, a.morphous, but your comment strikes me as an instance of just the sort of projection I notice in the post. You impute racism and privilege to me. It’s a fantasy of your own mind. Physician, heal thyself. When you are done with that project, you can start in on fixing other people.

      • How can a person be “very aware” of his own *unconscious* racism?

        It really isn՚t hard for any minimally self-reflective person to be aware of their own underlying biases. Calling them “unconscious” is perhaps not quite right – they are implicit and often not thought about explicitly, but certainly accessible to conscious awareness. You can even experimentally demonstrate them https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/takeatest.html .

        “Thank *God* I am not like those racist white *Republicans.*” *Such* a relief. *So* much more comfortable. “I *hate* my inherent white racism, so that makes me a good person, unlike those horrible white people who don’t seem particularly worried about their hatred of other races.”

        That՚s a slightly more accurate picture of an SJW mind, although I՚m not sure why you should call it hypocritical.

        Whether we like it or not, people will always form and act upon stereotypes, and will always like some sorts of people more than others. There’s no point in getting angry about this fact, any more than there is a point in getting angry about the weather (something else that the Left has been doing).

        It՚s not a question of “liking”, it՚s a matter of power and justice. And more fundamentally, about how people are going to live with each other in the real world, which is cosmopolitan and multicultural, like it or not.

        As for anger: Some people have a rage for justice, often because they have been personally victimized but sometimes out of more intellectual or religious motivations, such as the great Christian abolitionists like Wilberforce. If you don՚t share that passion, I don՚t think I՚m a persuasive enough writer to instill it in you.

        And the line about the weather – that makes me angrier than all the racism stuff. Race is an admittedly difficult issue, but preserving the planet in a form that can sustain human civilization really should not be a controversial question.

        But there just isn’t that much vicious racism around these days – among whites, anyway.

        Are you fucking kidding me? Have you turned on the news recently? White racism is resurgent in a way nobody could have imagined ten years ago. A vicious racist white supremacist is in the Presidency and supported by one of our major political parties. Nazis and white supremacists have committed mass murder here and in Europe. A white supremacist shot 20 people in Gilroy just days ago.

        Despite our differences, I thought you were at least a serious person, but the stuff above indicates otherwise.

      • 1- It is bad enough that tragedies happen without politicizing them for some other end. I’ve heard a number of theories about Eppstein, I’ve heard the theories about Gilroy and Las vegas and Newtown and Parkland: The worst thing about how we are reacting to these tragedies is trying to prop up the dead to serve a political end. There is a solution to these problems, and we will not be able to achieve any solutions whatever if we continue to use them to forward a political end.

        2- “Because the news said it” is no longer a valid definition of Truth, and frankly I’m not sure it ever has been. People used to trust the news, because what they said often lined up with what was True. But news has always served another master and it is not Truth. They use their perch as gatekeepers to information to forward a political end.

        3- Therefore, you live in a scary world where you believe what the talking heads tell you. You believe that White Racism is resurgent. You believe that the President is a racist. You believe that Nazis are a problem again. None of these things are true. None of these things are true. The claims you are making about the man’s Character are totally unsubstantiated by anything factual. Moneyed interests are using the news to convince you of something that is not true. They are manipulating you to forward a political end.

        4- Climate alarmism is increasingly revealed to be only supported by fraudulent data by clerics of Scientism hoping to use their authority to forward a political end. There is no data to support the notion of climate change, and all indications are that it is normal and healthy. Weather anecdotes should not be used to forward a political end.

        To summarize: Political interests are using non-political experiences to forward political ends, and the people who stand to benefit most from those political ends are not you and I, it’s those political interests. To innoculate yourself against being used by these political interests, define Truth in something other than what authoritative people tell you, and define it in something outside yourself. Truth is a hidden gem waiting to be found, and if you listen to yourself you’ll only become lost; if you listen to others, they’ll only lead you to themselves. The search for what is True should be paramount. Truth is not a political end. Truth is a prize unto itself.

      • I’m not sure why you should call [SJW Pharisaical false consciousness] hypocritical.

        Because it is a false act. Hypocrites are actors putting on a show to save their appearances. This can be done even when they themselves are the only audience, and are totally convinced that the show is for real.

        … the real world, which is cosmopolitan and multicultural, like it or not.

        Cosmopolitanism always ends with the destruction of the cosmic City, and thus of multicultural cosmopolitanism. The real world is never cosmopolitan for long. Diversity + proximity → war.

        If you don’t share that passion [for justice], I don’t think I’m a persuasive enough writer to instill it in you.

        It is obvious that our dispute does not turn on whether or not I am in favor of justice – for, obviously, I am – but upon our different notions of what is just.

        Zeal for justice need not be expressed in anger. Anger is generally a sequela of fear. So, to ask why a Social Justice Warrior is angry about race is implicitly to ask her what it is about race that makes her afraid. I’ll leave the inference to a credible answer as an exercise for the reader (hint: search this site for the string “scapegoat”).

        My zeal for justice is intense. But I’m not particularly angry about racial injustice in America because I don’t see very much of it. You on the other hand see a lot of it. Like I said, we live in different worlds. In your world, for example, President Trump has said and done all sorts of racist things, so that it is evident that he is a vicious racist white supremacist. In my world, those things are nowhere to be found, and your impression of him is just kooky.

        It would be great if you could please cite to some of the racist things Trump has said or done. I am aware of lots of things he has said that the Left have *called* racist, but I can read and understand English, and so I can see that the Left are out to lunch in characterizing them that way.

        One of the reasons the Right have become more and more convinced that the Left are projecting a lot of their own internal demons is that the projections to which they nowadays give utterance are more and more at bitter odds with reality. The Left have always been more or less radically alienated from and at war with the realities of human nature in a Fallen world – ergo of economics, politics, and society – but since 2016 they seem to have entered the terminal phase of psychopathology, wherein the patient apprehends all sorts of hallucinations, and cannot tell them from reality.

        … preserving the planet in a form that can sustain human civilization really should not be a controversial question.

        It isn’t. It is silly to suggest that it is. It is even sillier to get all angry at the idea that there are people out there who *want* to destroy the planet. Again, that’s just a crazy idea, and it,s nuts to let it sway you.

        The dispute is not over whether we ought to take care of the planet, but over what really endangers the biosphere, whether and to what degree our own activities are at fault, what if anything we can or ought to do about it, and how we ought to do it. These are all complicated questions, that call for calm inquiry and deliberation. Frothing at the mouth is not going to cut it.

        FYI, not only am I strongly in favor of justice and the planet, I also favor motherhood, apple pie, truth, and the American Way.

        Are you fucking kidding me? Have you turned on the news recently? White racism is resurgent in a way nobody could have imagined ten years ago. A vicious racist white supremacist is in the Presidency and supported by one of our major political parties. Nazis and white supremacists have committed mass murder here and in Europe. A white supremacist shot 20 people in Gilroy just days ago.

        A.morphous, the news is fake. Had you not heard? There’s almost no white racism around. If it is increasing, which I doubt, it is in reaction to the burgeoning racial hatred directed at whites. There’s lots more “kill whitey” racism out there than there was before 2008, and it is openly, viciously expressed – and acted upon. Look at what just happened to the DNC.

        The shooter in Gilroy appears to have been an environmentalist nut who hated both whites and Hispanics. Shortly before the attack, he wrote on his Instagram account:

        Why overcrowd towns and pave more open space to make room for hordes of mestizos and Silicon Valley white twats?

        I.e., *not* a white supremacist, exactly. The media characterize him as such on account of his citation of Might is Right. But that book is Nietzschean, anti-Christian Social Darwinism. It can be used to justify violent usurpation of social power by anyone at all – including communists speaking power to truth, Muslim radical jihadim, environmentalist totalitarians, you name it. So the characterization of the media is tendentious, as usual. It is an exercise in projection, just like their characterization of Trump.

        The Left are blaming Trump for the shooter, just as they are blaming him for global warming. In a few years, the Left will be blaming Trump for the Little Ice Age caused by the solar minimum that is just beginning.

        Danger → Fear → Anger → Projection → Blame → Scapegoating → Relief → Danger … That’s how the cycle runs. Life is inherently dangerous, so the sacrificial immolation of the scapegoat never works for long. It must be repeated. And even if there are no real extraordinary dangers out there, death is always with us, the most ordinary and inescapable thing of all. For pagans and atheists, death is a far more terrifying thing than it is for Christians. And there is nothing they can do about it. So when they feel threatened at some loom of mortality, they look about for something that will work as a field of projection; something that they can believe is extraordinarily dangerous, and that they can perhaps do something about, usually by destroying it. Having found such a suitable victim, or class of victims, they can then work themselves into a froth of outrage, that will excuse – or at least cover – the ensuing temporarily cathartic holocaust.

        No matter how good things get in reality, the Left – which is where most of the pagans and atheists are concentrated – will therefore always be apoplectic about something or other, running around, hair on fire. For the Left, there is always a two minute hate; always an enemy of the state, a running dog lackey, a petit bourgeois, a politically incorrect transgressor.

        Again, a.morphous, I regret to say it, but your most recent comments read as instances of just the sort of projection discussed by the original post. You express even the anger and personal condemnation of your interlocutor that are so characteristic of the type.

        It’s sad, really. I mean that simply. I feel sad that you feel so upset about this stuff – so upset that you’d feel better having insulted me than not. This bespeaks real torment within you. And that is sad. I have come to care for you, and it worries me when I see you so upset. Honest.

      • Racism is a diagnosis of symptoms, not the symptoms themselves. In today’s discourse, a racist has the symptoms but rejects the diagnosis. An anti-racist accepts the diagnosis and sees the true meaning of his symptoms. When the writer says he was “unconscious” of his racism, he means that he has only begun to give his symptoms a racist interpretation. He was unconscious of the meaning of some symptoms until very recently, and supposes himself unconscious of other symptoms yet to be disclosed.

        I think racism has become a therapeutic term for whites. Recovering from racism becomes an endless project of personal improvement that combines self-loathing and contempt for everyone who has not undertaken the self-loathing project. Listening to anti-racists talk is a lot like listening to an AA meeting. Or to a woman who has given her life the diagnosis of domestic abuse. This is not to say that there is no real domestic abuse. There is, just as there is real racism. But we are not dealing with the real thing when racism or domestic abuse become the skeleton key that opens all doors.

        Orthosperians will diagnosis of these things as forms of gnosticism, and will be accused of racism for doing so. Like you, I recognize and abhor genuine malice against people of other races; but today’s anti-racist conflates with this a great many innocent, natural, and prudential behaviors and beliefs. Racism has become his Illuminati, the ultimate conspiracy.

      • Because it is a false act.

        No it isn՚t, as you described it. SJWs hate racism, including their own, but have a special level of hatred for those who are *unrepentant* racists. That may be bad for a variety of reasons, but it isn՚t false or hypocritical.

        Cosmopolitanism always ends with the destruction of the cosmic City…

        I don՚t know what that really means, but I guess I would say good riddance; I prefer real cities.

        Zeal for justice need not be expressed in anger.

        Indeed not, I think I said as much.

        My zeal for justice is intense. But I’m not particularly angry about racial injustice in America because I don’t see very much of it. You on the other hand see a lot of it. Like I said, we live in different worlds…

        You know, I was going to say something similar – we clearly have very different and incompatible views of the world. As a multiculturalist and epistemological anarchist, I՚d be happy to let you live in your worldview, and I՚d be happy to stand outside it and admire it for its own qualities, even if it wasn՚t to my personal taste.

        But as you say above, too much contact between divergent cultures breeds war. And while divergence in, say, musical tastes is harmless, divergence in politics is inherently a matter of conflict – pure liberal neutrality is an unworkable myth (I think this is a point where you and I would agree). Eventually political conflicts must be settled, some some values must dominate, incompatible ones have to knuckle under.

        So no, we don՚t get to live in our own separate worlds. Your values and my values will have to fight it out.. Perhaps not here – this is your blog after all. But the contest in the real world is ongoing and omnipresent.

        It would be great if you could please cite to some of the racist things Trump has said or done.

        I don՚t believe this is a serious question. Certainly in my world this is not a matter open to any doubt whatsoever. You can believe what you want in your world.

      • Disagreement is natural in humans, and the natural remedy is separation. When there was plenty of space, this meant separation in space. When there was disagreement in a tribe, for instance, half the tribe moved up the river or over the hill. But eventually we ran out of space, so we made use of social separation. Groups that disagreed occupied the same space, but limited interaction with rules of marriage and hospitality. The Indian caste system is an example. We today find ourselves with no empty space and a shrinking toolkit of social separation. Liberal legislation and the large scale of our organizations force interaction between people with whom we disagree. The only solution is tolerance, including tolerance of intolerance (short of violence). We are in the position of the characters in Sartre’s play No Exit, since we mostly hate each other, and yet have no place to go.

      • a.morphous:So no, we don՚t get to live in our own separate worlds. Your values and my values will have to fight it out.

        also a.morphous:Certainly in my world this is not a matter open to any doubt whatsoever. You can believe what you want in your world.

      • It would be great if you could please cite to some of the racist things Trump has said or done.

        I don’t believe this is a serious question. Certainly in my world this is not a matter open to any doubt whatsoever. You can believe what you want in your world.

        In other words, you *can’t* adduce a racist thing Trump has said or done. Your conviction that he is a vicious, racist white supremacist is not based on evidence, but is rather a private fantasy of your own. Smells like projection.

        We do indeed appear to live in different worlds. They differ in that mine is real. Since you are an epistemological anarchist, you can have no way to argue that I am wrong about that, or that you are right about anything.

        I don’t mean to be snarky. I’m just drawing out the obvious conclusions from what you have written.

        SJWs hate racism, including their own, but have a special level of hatred for those who are *unrepentant* racists. That may be bad for a variety of reasons, but it isn’t false or hypocritical.

        The Pharisee – who is *in fact* more righteous in his way of life than the sinner whom he scorns (“There but for the grace of God go I”) – is in his self-righteousness putting on an act.

        For, no one is truly righteous, no not one; and the greater his sagacity and the closer his approach to righteousness, the more ought the Pharisee to realize this, and to recur to profound humility. Reflecting with contentment upon one’s own righteousness is *always* an indication of unrighteousness, and of self-deception.

        Those who believe themselves righteous cannot honestly and completely have understood their own sinfulness.

        That’s all I meant by calling the racist self-righteousness of the SJW hypocritical. Like the Pharisee, the SJW does truly believe in the conception of righteousness that he professes and preaches – and that, to give him credit, he does his best to practice. But like the Pharisee, the SJW indulges in hypocritical self-righteousness.

        The bottom line is that the SJW is in no position to criticize another on account of racism until he has purged the last bit of it from himself. But on his own account of racism as inherent in racial identity, that’s a project he cannot complete.

        Racism seems to have taken in the moral economy of the SJW the same function as Original Sin in the moral economy of the Christian.

        This whole nexus of ideas might only make sense to those who have heard a million sermons on the parable of the Pharisee [Luke 18:9-14].

        Zeal for justice need not be expressed in anger.

        Indeed not, I think I said as much.

        I was responding to your astonishment – and implicit admonishment – that I did *not* feel the same sort of passion you do on the topic of racism; that I was *not* angry about it.

        So no, we don’t get to live in our own separate worlds. Your values and my values will have to fight it out. Perhaps not here – this is your blog after all. But the contest in the real world is ongoing and omnipresent.

        This blog is part of the real world, and is intended as a forum for the joint and several ascertainment of the truth. So, yeah, let it by all means be an agora for the collision of our two worlds. May the best world win. If your world is to win, you’ll have to adduce better arguments and evidence in its favor; and to ascertain whether or not it has win, you’ll have to accept some criteria of truth – which is to say, that you’ll have to abandon your epistemological anarchism.

      • I had a brief flirtation with the epistemological anarchism of Paul Feyerabend many years ago, and will confess that I remember little more than his slogan “anything goes.” This of course means that anything goes epistemologically. Epistemology pronounces all propositions as equal, and thus pretty much closes up the business of epistemology. This is supposed to be liberating, but it is in fact just the opposite. If I cannot appeal to truth, how am I to stand up to power? Moral relativism is the same. It is also said to be liberating because no one can tell me I am wrong. That sounds great until I realize that I cannot tell anyone that they are wrong, either. Or I can tell them and have them laugh at me if they are more powerful than I.

        The phrase “speaking truth to power” has been much abused, but the principle is sound. Appeals to truth and goodness are the true “weapons of the weak,” and epistemological anarchy and moral relativism take those weapons from the weak.

      • That’s a challenge with any system of thought that doesn’t require orthodoxy. If following some ideology allows both some proposition P and ¬P, then you’re not actually saying anything about proposition P. Thus, it isn’t taking a position on the matter, therefore it’s not an ideology.

      • In other words, you *can’t* adduce a racist thing Trump has said or done.

        Don՚t be absurd, I could list off a dozen things if I wanted to. It՚s like arguing about whether water is wet.

        The bottom line is that the SJW is in no position to criticize another on account of racism until he has purged the last bit of it from himself.

        But that is not how morality works. It՚s like saying you can՚t criticize a murderer if you have any traces of anger in your heart.

        So, yeah, let it by all means be an agora for the collision of our two worlds.

        Nah, I don՚t think so. For one thing, you have an unfair home-field advantage. For another, with issues like Trump՚s racism, you are either gaslighting or your world is so far removed from mine (and from the mainstream consensus) that there isn՚t any useful conversation to be had. It՚s fun, sometimes, to discuss differences in metaphysics and epistemology, but this is something quite different.

        (from an earlier comment of yours) But there just isn’t that much vicious racism around these days – among whites, anyway

        In the last couple of weeks there have been at least two instances of racially motivated mass murder by whites. That՚s another fact from the real world. I don՚t care to play games around such matters.

      • You really ought to specify Amorphous Racism or Kristor Racism, or AR and KR. They are two different things without much in common. KR springs a form of hate that I’ll call Kristor Hate, or KH. AR springs from AH. KH entails malice, and here there is no need to specify Kristor Malice since AH does not entail malice. Sometimes there is malice in AR, and sometimes there is not. Sometimes there are good intentions. Sometimes there is conscious indifference. Sometimes there is mere absence of mind. The essential point to see is that, when Racism is Amorphous, just about anything can be Racism.

      • A faulty generalization is a conclusion about all or many instances of a phenomenon that has been reached on the basis of just one or just a few instances of that phenomenon.[1] It is an example of jumping to conclusions. For example, we may generalize about all people, or all members of a group, based on what we know about just one or just a few people.

        The presence of at least two instances of racially motivated mass murder does not imply racism is prevalent. Generalizing about a whole group (Whites) on the basis of just a few instances of a phenomenon (racially motivated mass murder).

        The fallacy of false attribution is a type of appeal to authority, where the proponent either hides or puffs up the credentials or credibility of the source to enhance an argument.

        “I can list many instances of Trump being racist but I will not, you must believe me on my authority.”

        Argument from analogy is a special type of inductive argument, whereby perceived similarities are used as a basis to infer some further similarity that has yet to be observed

        “It’s like arguing that water is wet.”
        “It’s like saying you can’t criticize a murderer if you have any traces of anger in your heart”

        A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an “either/or” situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option

        “You are either gaslighting or your world is so far removed from mine that there isn’t any useful conversation to be had.”

        In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for “argument to the people”) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: “If many believe so, it is so.”

        “… or your world is so far removed from mine (and from the mainstream consensus) …”

        ***
        I’m here for an argument! An argument is a series of statements intended to establish a proposition. There are no propositions to support or defend in there.

        This is me:

        Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false

      • Don’t be absurd, I could list off a dozen [racist] things [Trump has said or done] if I wanted to. It’s like arguing about whether water is wet.

        If it’s so easy, why don’t you want to do it, so as to crush my argument decisively? Sorry, a.morphous; until you produce some racist stuff that Trump has emitted, your unwillingness to do so will read as inability to do so, thus as rhetorical and dialectical failure; as, sadly, evidence of projection on your part.

        The bottom line is that the SJW is in no position to criticize another on account of racism until he has purged the last bit of it from himself.

        But that is not how morality works. It’s like saying you can’t criticize a murderer if you have any traces of anger in your heart.

        No, of course it isn’t. It’s like saying you can’t criticize a murderer if you are yourself a murderer.

        So, yeah, let [the Orthosphere] by all means be an agora for the collision of our two worlds.

        Nah, I don’t think so. For one thing, you have an unfair home-field advantage.

        Not at all. We are not epistemological anarchists around here, remember. If you have a compelling argument – valid, with true premises – we’ll be convinced. So, if your arguments are any good, have at it and be prepared to win some converts to your point of view.

        For another, with issues like Trump’s racism, you are either gaslighting or your world is so far removed from mine (and from the mainstream consensus) that there isn’t any useful conversation to be had.

        Produce some evidence that your world is the real one. Then you’ll have something to talk about. Until you do, you’ll just be blowing smoke.

        But there just isn’t that much vicious racism around these days – among whites, anyway.

        In the last couple of weeks there have been at least two instances of racially motivated mass murder by whites. That’s another fact from the real world. I don’t care to play games around such matters.

        The Narrators of the Fake News Narrative would have you believe that those mass murders were committed by racially motivated men. That the Narrators of the Fake News Narrative are purveying this notion is deeply suspicious.

        Scoot is in any case right that the actions of two isolated lunatics cannot indicate the attitudes of millions of other, normal people. If racism was prevalent among whites in fact, there would be no problem of racism in America, for there would be no other sort of people in America than whites; the whites would have either killed them all or driven them away. The very fact that other races are even present in America demonstrates that the whites thereof are not racist, but are in fact tolerant of other races.

      • [continued]

        Scoot is in any case right that the actions of two isolated lunatics cannot indicate the attitudes of millions of other, normal people.

        https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/emilyhoerner/police-facebook-racist-violent-posts-comments-philadelphia

        The very fact that other races are even present in America demonstrates that the whites thereof are not racist, but are in fact tolerant of other races.

        You are aware of the history of African-Americans in this country, I assume?

        I՚ve had about enough of this. Either you are trolling me in bad faith, or your worldview is so divergent from mine that there՚s no hope of having an actual argument. I՚d like to think otherwise, but your deployment of the Trumpian phrase, “fake news”, indicates that you aren՚t interested. The only purpose of that phrase is to terminate any possibility of rational or constructive political discussion.

      • You are not aware of the history of African-Americans in this country, I assume. Why do you people lose your taste for nuance and complexity when it comes to that? Why is everything black and white when it comes to Black and White?

        “Fake news” may be Trump’s phrase, but the concept is radical and quite obviously drawn from the Marxist notion of a legitimating ideology. You remember the bumper sticker “Question Authority?” Perhaps you had one. I guess that should have read “Question Authority (Until I’m In Authority).”

      • @JMSmith: The point of your first paragraph is quite beyond me.

        “Fake news” may be Trump’s phrase, but the concept is radical and quite obviously drawn from the Marxist notion of a legitimating ideology. You remember the bumper sticker “Question Authority?”

        Yes, it is very common for fascists to appropriate and pervert ideas from the left. That՚s how you get “National Socialism”.

        Questioning authority is an intellectual act. Take someone like Noam Chomsky, who puts enormous effort into picking apart in detail with how the New York Times and other elements of the power elite justify themselves through ideology. Whatever you think of him or his results, he՚s putting in a lot of work. Whereas “Fake news” is an anti-intellectual slogan, designed to reinforce bubbles, a license to ignore any information contrary to an ideology.

      • “Fake news” is a slogan. So is “question authority.” And they both espouse the attitude that Paul Ricoeur called “the hermeneutics of suspicion.” That is to say that they encourage us not to take official pronouncements at face value, and to presume that they are written to deceive, distract or manipulate the “sheeple” (another new slogan).

        “Fake news” is part of the general “crisis of authority” that we of the Orthosphere say has been going on since the Reformation, but it is novel insofar as it turns the hermeneutics of suspicion against institutions (journalism, intellectuals, universities) that have until now owned the hermeneutics of suspicion.

        Of course these official critics do not like to be criticized. Journalists can call each other dirty liars, but they seem to believe that calling people dirty liars is the exclusive privilege of journalists. Noam Chomsky can dissect the hidden motives of powerful interests, but he is indignant that many people less powerful that Noam Chomsky doubt the disinterestedness of Noam Chomsky.

  3. The laser focus on racism is merely the misdirection of projection where hatred for one’s father(s) is the definitive pathology of anti-racism.

    SJWism is just a mechanism of perpetuating anti-racism under the guise of fighting a “good” fight against racism, i.e., subverting other individuals’ reverence for their father(s).

    When the SJW cries “racism,” he is pleading with his enemy to hate his father as the anti-racist hates his own.

    And he will forever be denied this “privilege of equality.”

    Revolution is his “ultimate.”

  4. Pingback: Cantandum in Ezkhaton 07/28/19 | Liberae Sunt Nostrae Cogitatiores

  5. If it’s so easy, why don’t you want to do it, so as to crush my argument decisively?

    As I՚ve said at least twice, I don՚t want to because I don՚t believe you are arguing in good faith, so why should I waste my time?

    Fortunately there are plenty of people to outsource the task to: https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-history I found this with 10 seconds of Googling, and if you were truly interested you could have found it yourself.

    I know, it՚s Fake News to you. But how are we supposed to have an argument based on entirely different sets of acceptable sources?

    No, of course it isn’t. It’s like saying you can’t criticize a murderer if you are yourself a murderer.

    Implicit bias is not the same thing as active racial discrimination, and you know it and I know you know it. You aren՚t stupid. More bad faith arguments.

    The Narrators of the Fake News Narrative would have you believe that those mass murders were committed by racially motivated men.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/03/us/patrick-crusius-el-paso-shooter-manifesto.htm
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/06/trump-racism-comments/588067/#main-content

    You can dismiss this all as Fake News if you like, but see above.

    • a.morphous,

      I know I have played the role of occasional interlocutor and peanut gallery pissant, but I just want you to know I am sympathetic that you are frustrated, but at the same time bewildered by your frustration. Kristor regularly makes claims and statements that do not make sense to me. I ask for clarification, or make a counterclaim, and he will either clarify or rebut as appropriate. In dialectic, the first responsibility of all contributors is to be understood. If no one gets what I’m saying, perhaps there is a different way I can say it, so that the discussion can move beyond the ‘point counter-point’ phase. My sympathy extends to the frustration at not being understood. Forcing ourselves to explain in such a way as to ensure all participants are at the same starting point is not easy, but is fundamental to dialectic. I fundamentally want to understand your argument, even if I disagree with it. You and I will understand our respective arguments thoroughly if we force ourselves to explain them clearly.

      I am bewildered by your frustration in that you clearly have a deeply intellectual mind and are capable of going toe-to-toe with Kristor in topics that are far beyond my crude comprehension. Halting dialectic in order to make claims of bad faith does not help forward discussion, which I intuit you crave seeing as you are a frequent commenter. Dialectic is the evaluation of the truth-value of propositions and opinions, and you are making truth-value claims on propositions. If I disagree with you, and I raise a counterpoint, you would be helping me by rebutting my counterclaims. You would be helping increase my knowledge by pointing out where I am wrong, as I frequently am. If you did not want your claims to be analyzed, there are plenty of places for you to make those claims where you will be met with rounds of applause and go totally unquestioned. But you choose to make your claims here. I am certain that you are neither surprised nor offended that you made claims here and received the response you got. What is bewildering to me is why you are frustrated that you got exactly what you wanted, and are now threatening to depart from dialectic completely.

      Everyone makes truth-value judgements on propositions. No one is exempted from having to support those claims, even me with this judgment I am proposing right now. It is not unreasonable for claims to be disputed. It is unreasonable to get offended by it.

      Best of luck to you!

      • Scoot, thanks for an admirable and extremely well written summary. Don’t sell yourself short. You’re not a peanut gallery pissant. You are not in the peanut gallery at all; and I would describe you rather as a puissant.

    • a.morphous…

      Your protest of “arguing in bad faith” is the very projection so endemic to the radical autonomist.

      You “possess” an amorphous conception of “racism.”

      In other words, a.morphous’ conception of “racism” is hardly definitive and so its bad-faith applicability seemingly infinite.

      IF, on the other hand, you possessed a definitive conception of anti-racism, you would be far less willing to accuse others of arguing in bad faith over what is and what is not actual racism.

      The way the cyst-stem is setup now, separation is “racist” and less-than-total integration is “racist.” A classic “tails you win, heads I lose” scenario.

      Do you hate your father(s)?

Comment

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.