All the SWPL is White Supremacist, & So Must Be Stamped Out

We learn from Vice Magazine that interest in and enjoyment of the wilderness is characteristic of white supremacists. We had already learned that grammar, diction, logic, and math are white supremacist. Also science, ergo, and so then knowledge, and a fortiori wisdom; thus any notion of characterological merit, or excellence.

When truth as such is dethroned, nothing can survive. Thanks, you goddamned nominalists!

NB: that is not a curse, but a statement of fact.

A pattern emerges: everything that white people generally and particularly and so noticeably like, respect or enjoy is white supremacist, and must be wiped out.

The casualties of this slippery slope must eventually include all the things white people generally and particularly and so noticeably like: e.g., outdoor recreation, winter sports, conservation, architecture (traditional and modern, equally), Brooks Brothers (and all its ilk), Shakespeare (and all his ilk), antipathy to litter and squalor, tidiness, cleanliness, healthy foods, exercise, abstinence from vicious habits (alcohol, porn, drugs, fornication), the family, chastity, fitness, Classical music (also rock, country, Big Band, folk …), and so forth ad absurdum (e.g., forks, table manners, etc.). All such are clearly racist, and loathsome haunts of white supremacists.

Most other sorts of people like lots of those things, too, of course. The family? Right? But still, you know and I know that all those things are on the chopping block, on account only of the fact that the European West likes them. Traditional cultures of every sort have of course valued almost all of those things, even when they originated elsewhere (viz., the complete, expert and wonderful adoption and propagation of Western Classical music by Asian cultures). No matter. Does it tend to succor civil culture – which, globally, is now as a matter of plain fact largely Western (or, in common with the culture of the West (as, e.g., with the family, religious piety, traditional and local rules of decorum and politesse, and so forth))? It must be bad, and must be deleted.

The logical terminus ad quem of this slope will see the destruction of almost all the things that enabled and then allowed wokeism and its antecedents and satellites to arise and flourish in the first place: indoor plumbing, law, engineering, sewers, public health, medicine, industry, free exercise of conscience (and by extension, contracts of any sort), information technology (starting from the post and the printing press, and indeed from writing), the dignity of women, private property, literacy, science, city planning – cities as such – markets (they vanish with contracts), agriculture.

That’s right, agriculture. In traditionally European countries, almost all the farmers are European. That’s problematic. It is unjust, and must be stopped. Indeed, in traditionally European countries, most of the people, of any sort, are European. That, too is a big problem. It is unjust, and it must be corrected.

Agriculture is at the very bottom of the slope that civilization has ascended, along with the city as such. But also hunting and gathering. Those are white supremacist, too. Why, they are of a piece with those horrid national parks!

At the final twist of the reductio ad absurdum, worry about white supremacy is also a white thing. So are all the liberal notions. Abolition of slavery? Totally a white thing. Xenophilia? Started out in Europe, and still practiced mostly by Europeans. Sexual libertinism, permissiveness and … what to call it … blurring of categories, I suppose – what of all that? So far, mostly a white phenomenon, with deplorable knock on effects for other sorts than Europeans (deplorable knock on effects, NB, mostly for those sorts that are not European). And so forth.

Here’s the thing: error is defective truth (errors that are completely wrong are totally incredible, wholly incoherent, indeed inexpressible; and so, never gain any traction in human affairs, other than among the idiots); and because all the processes of the world run on truth, error degrades and so tends to ruin them all; but then, by that same token it vitiates the very processes upon which it supervenes; so it devours itself in the end. How could it be otherwise?


PS: I was at Joshua Tree National Park not long ago. There in addition to Europeans I saw lots of Hispanics, Asians, and people who seemed as though they might have been Levantine (that’s a hard category to parse at a glance). I can say the same of my many recent visits to a vast municipal park in my near vicinity. There have I often seen people of many sorts, most of them indeed not of European extraction (the Europeans come in ones and twos, whereas the others tend to come in families, clans, and so forth; all good) – including, of course, Africans.

Appreciation of the wilderness is not by any means just a white thing (this, despite that it is quite a strong thing in traditional European cultures). Of course. To think otherwise is simply stupid. But the enemies of such things as appreciation of the wilderness – and so, implicitly, manifestly, inescapably, of subjection to the natural order of things – are at war with every cultural exponent thereof. Right now, still, the West with its love of nature predominates globally. So, the enemies of order per se hate the West in particular. But, if that had changed, so that the predominant culture was predominantly Muslim or Asian, those same adversaries of traditional Western culture would be at war with it – and with its particular beautiful form of love for the outdoors and the wilderness.

To be at odds with the wilderness, or with the love thereof, is at bottom to be at odds with reality as such. To love the wilderness is to love reality. Nuff said.

29 thoughts on “All the SWPL is White Supremacist, & So Must Be Stamped Out

    • One could say God separated the Nations so that cultural diseases like how European countries is ground zero for them initially don’t get easily passed on to the potentially immune.

      • Borders – disparity as such – are the forecondition and sine qua non of diversity, and so of ecological metastability.

        What the Europeans have done to themselves is quintessentially European. It is a source both of the strength that enabled the Europeans to conquer the entire planet, and also the disease that sapped them and their civilization from within. At present there is a race under way, between the destructive and constructive elements of the West. The former have latterly triumphed. But the contest is not over until it is over. We must therefore keep ever our wicks trimmed, awaiting the dawn, and our redeemer, who is Truth.

      • I agree Kristor, but must ask – have you read “That Hideous Strength” by CS Lewis? Because your point is both made and, well not so much refuted as refined, in the book.

      • Yes. That Hideous Strength is perhaps the book most referred to or quoted here, apart from the Bible, and perhaps the Summa Theologica. We’ve discussed it in quite a few posts. Every time I read it, my hair rises at the spooky prescience Lewis manifests. The man is a genius.

  1. Your line stating that,

    The logical terminus ad quem of this slope will see the destruction of almost all the things that enabled and then allowed wokeism and its antecedents and satellites to arise and flourish in the first place.

    put me in mind of General Washington’s statement below, extracted from his Farewell Address:

    …destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.

    Which puts you in pretty good company, I’d say.

    Good work, sir.

    • Thanks, Terry. It is interesting to contemplate how things might have turned out in North America had Washington accepted the offer to become our first American king. I wager that we would have avoided both the War of 1812 and the Civil War; and that, within 40 or 50 years of 1776, Washington or one of his heirs would have forged an alliance with the British throne, sealed by marriages.

  2. In 2008, I was still a card-carrying member of the Green Party. Accordingly, I voted for Cynthia McKinney for president. Miz McKinney is, of course, about as black Georgia woman as you can get. And it wasn’t only that she was the candidate of my party — I also personally knew her and her father slightly and truly admired them both. Didn’t always agree, but they seemed to me to be good people.

    So, one of the SJWs in my life finds out that I was going to vote for Miz McKinney and immediately proclaimed, “Oh, Nell, you’re just the kind of racist who WOULD do that!” Apparently voting for the black candidate “who just can’t win,” is classic racist behavior. In the years since, I quietly, internally have come to see myself as a racist and I kind of like it. It means I’m not a herd creature. I’m still the person who once promised my mother I’d never participate in that old school racist type racism. Today’s racism is not what she was worried about …

    So now you can add voting for black native born women to the list of white people being white supremacists because they didn’t care for voting for black African immigrants (that and actually liking the black woman in question.)

    • Yeah, seeing the value in a person or nation despite racial and cultural differences seems to be more common among whites. To be fair, whites have for the last few centuries been on the top of the global heap, so they’ve had more wherewithal for that sort of magnanimity than other sorts of people.

      Woke dogma is that white people are incorrigibly racist, so there’s no point in their trying to be fair to other sorts of people. If you try to be fair to them, that’s racist, too. It’s just a not so subtle way of signalling your own superiority – your supremacy.

      So, there’s no point in trying to be fair. But if you don’t try to be fair, why that too is obviously supremacist.

  3. There are only two world civilizations with traditions of landscape painting, the West and China. These two traditions see nature in very different ways, but China and its satellite cultures definitely appreciate nature. In India, landscapes are just background, much as they are in paintings from the middle ages. Nobody else was up to representational painting.

    The West and China also share a love of solitude. The isolated figure is indeed very common in both landscape traditions. Blacks on the other hand are very gregarious. You mention that Latins tend to show up at parks in large families. If you see a noisy group in a picnic shelter, it is very often non-white. If you see an individual or couple sitting in some lonely spot far from the nearest road, it is almost always white, and otherwise Asian.

    There are many parts in the anti-whiteness machine, but one is that gregarious humans tend to fear and dislike loners. They project their misanthropy onto the loner, but the loner is by nature tolerant because he has first-hand knowledge of individualism. The solitary hiker doesn’t wish to stop people gathering for a hootenanny in a picnic shelter, he simply asks to be excused for not joining them. The people in the picnic shelter, on the other hand, hate the solitary hiker because they think he is a snob.

    Speaking more generally, I think the tremendous surge in anti-whiteness is just natural human unpleasantness forced through a narrow channel. Humans like to be rude and insulting, and are nowadays allowed to be rude and insulting about only one group. It was much healthier when rivulets of ethnic vituperation ran in all directions. A civilization is obviously doomed when it can mock nothing but the habits that make it work.

    • I have observed also that at the beach or the park, other sorts of people not unusually enjoy playing loud music on boom boxes. A big picnic at the park the other day – about 50 people of all ages, playing, laughing, having a great time – had some Middle Eastern music going. I thought perhaps they were Turkish; didn’t catch enough of the language from a distance to be able to tell. It was wonderfully festive, and I was charmed as I walked by with my dog.

      I’ve never once in my life seen a white or Asian group do that. What I do see fairly often these days is lots of people out for a solitary walk wearing ear phones and either listening to a podcast or having a loud oblivious phone conversation.

      • That matches well with what I’ve observed, but I have an inkling that specific European ethnicity also plays a part. I knew many literal Appalachian hillbillies, and what I noticed is they tend to be garrulous when among their own and shy among strangers and in public. That is practically the definition of clannishness and so it makes sense that they differ in that dimension from other Northern Eurpoean ethnic groups. I have an inkling the Southern and Eastern European ethnics of the Northern U.S. were similar.

        My other thought is that especially the more clannish Euro ethnicities of the U.S. were more likely to be publicly gregarious in now long past times because ghettoization and segregation meant the public was more private, they belonged to their neighborhood in ways modern Whites do not. Not to read minds or disparage, but I have a feeling that Middle Eastern family or the Hispanics that I see do the same has a greater sense of owning the commons than you or I. Hispanics or Blacks I have seen can be shy when they feel they are in another’s owned space. They are bolder in part because they know that they own the space which Whites used to own.

  4. …the dignity of women… has always and everywhere been a woke concept I think, with no antecedents. It’s always been woke to think women are in particular need of dignifying.

    • That has been true in Christian societies. But in most other sorts of societies, women have been treated as less than fully human; and since women are in fact fully human, and so should be treated as such, then in such pagan societies women did stand in particular need of dignifying. The same goes for slaves.

      Egalitarianism of the liberal and especially the woke sort is a subtly different matter. From the fact that women and slaves are fully human and ought therefore to be treated as such, it does not follow that all humans are *exactly the same* in dignity, or in any other way, so that they ought all to be treated *exactly the same.*

      • @Kristor

        But in most other sorts of societies, women have been treated as less than fully human…

        This seems like special pleading such as feminists do. We’d have to first establish these other societies have a proper understanding of what it means to be fully human at all, and only then can we say whether they were excluding women. I’d say they didn’t have a proper understanding applied to anyone in the first place. It’s a pretty radical departure from the Christian understanding, for instance, to say that there is something intrinsic to an individual that makes him a slave or a free citizen. This particular deficient understanding of the human person was applied to men no less, perhaps more, than it was to women. The understanding of men was deficient as well, albeit different from the deficiency as applied to women. The special pleading comes in by making it into a woman question when it really isn’t justified to do so.

        [I understand this is quite a rabbit trail from your main point, which is a good one, and I also understand if you don’t wish to go down it]

      • The men – and women – regarded by pagan cultures as other than fully human, and therefore, often, enslaved, were generally captives from other nations. “Servus” is Latin for “slave.” It means literally “saved” – as in our “conserve.” Which for the ancients was to say, spared from immediate execution and instead pressed into servitude. Slavic women were particularly prized by the Ottomans, and relatively easy to poach from nearby Central European nations; so we get “slave.”

        Almost all healthy nations disdain other nations as wogs. This is just as true of Christian nations as it is of pagan nations. The difference is that Christian nations understand the wogs as human beings, so that they learned to treat them as such. E.g., they developed elaborate rules of chivalric warfare that adjured humane and honorable treatment of prisoners of war and of foreign civilians.

        Almost all pagan nations regard their own women and all the peoples of other nations as less than fully human. Christian nations slowly realized that implicit in their religion is the truth that all human beings, of both sexes, are … human beings (we take this for granted, but it was a hard thing for our ancestors to understand (which was why God made such a point of it (Luke 10:25-37))). So, treating foreign nationals or women other than as human simply made no sense.

        The reason it makes sense to pick out the equal dignity of women qua humans is that pagan societies treated *their own* women as less than human, whereas they treated any freeman – i.e., any man not enslaved on account of his foreign heritage, which is to say, any man of their own nation – as fully human (however vile he might otherwise be). So, native women get special pleading because they were the only class of connationals who had not been treated as fully human.

        These are all broad generalizations, of course, and there are many exceptions to be found among both pagan and Christian societies.

      • Thanks for the reply Kristor. It just doesn’t make sense to me that these pagan societies generally speaking already had a sufficiently Christian understanding of the humanity of men, but at the same time needed wholly to be brought up to speed on women (well, and foreigners). It makes more sense that their overall understanding was deficient, and manifested differently for women than for men. We conclude that it was worse for women based on our modern penchant for assuming it always is worse for women, so I suspect.

      • O, for sure. I didn’t mean to disagree with either of those points. Pagans (and most Christians for that matter, even now) do have a defective understanding of men – and women, and foreigners, agreed. And we *assume* that pagan society was worse for women than men in no small part because of our unconscious modern perspective (which, as modernist, is a return to paganism of an atheist sort, and thus whacked in its own new and particularly insane way). The reality is that life is hard all over, for everyone, just in different ways. And that is always true.

        My point was only that pagan men understood only their adult male connationals as fully human, and nobody else – including children, for that matter, in most pagan societies – and that their move to Christianity involved a change in attitude toward women and foreigners in particular that raised them in dignity more than that conversion raised men in dignity. I think that Christian conversion did raise the dignity of men, too. After all, it made us all Images of God, and potential future gods, who could reign as kings in heaven.

      • @Kristor

        “Almost all pagan nations regard their own women and all the peoples of other nations as less than fully human. Christian nations slowly realized that implicit in their religion is the truth that all human beings, of both sexes, are … human beings (we take this for granted, but it was a hard thing for our ancestors to understand (which was why God made such a point of it (Luke 10:25-37))). So, treating foreign nationals or women other than as human simply made no sense.”

        This had the long term effect of returning natural sex ratios to Christian societies.

        Unfortunately the dowry from the Father of the bride to the Husband disincentivized keeping girls alive predominantly in non-Christian cultures:

        “The Confucian emphasis on the family led to increasing dowries which in turn led to a girl being far more expensive to raise than a boy, causing families to feel they could not afford as many daughters. The Confucian custom of keeping the male within the family meant that the money spent on a daughter’s upbringing along with the dowry would be lost when she married, and as such girls were called “money-losing merchandise”. Conversely the Confucian belief of Ren led Confucian intellectuals to support the idea that female infanticide was wrong and that the practice would upset the balance between yin and yang”

        “The dowry system in India is one given reason for female infanticide; over a time period spanning centuries it has become embedded within Indian culture. Although the state has taken steps to abolish the dowry system, the practice persists, and for poorer families in rural regions female infanticide and gender selective abortion is attributed to the fear of being unable to raise a suitable dowry and then being socially ostracized.”

        And I believe even in Christian countries where that is discouraged. The dowry system still provided disincentives for poor families. Or made their daughters unmarriagable.

        And the Israelite Bride Price system (Exodus 22:16-17). Helped with the incentive to keep daughters and raise them.

      • @Kristor

        Many thanks for the compliment. Its also a rebuttal to those who thinks bringing Dowries back as it was in Middle Ages Europe is a good idea.

        And it goes to show how the Bride Price has better outcomes purely on the basis of incentives. Either that or the modern arrangement of no price being paid. Aside from character evaluation and the necessary obligations. Outside of the influence of Christianity.

      • The notion of paying a man to take your daughter never made sense to me. Would you pay a man to take your brood cow or your laying hen off your hands? It’s just nuts, and I have no idea how it got started. Women are the limit of total fertility of a population; no women, no future; this is the whole biological basis of their excess value, as compared to men, who are by comparison quite expendable (this being the reason they are wasted on things like war). Bride price makes much more sense.

        Perhaps dowry got started under conditions of poverty, when the last thing anyone wanted was more kids to feed.

      • I believe the custom that the bride’s family pays the wedding costs is the ghost of the old dowry custom. The old custom certainly makes more sense than that, since I’ve been to weddings where the groom didn’t seem to enjoy himself and could have the money spent on the wedding to buy a new car. I think the heart of the old custom was that the dowry became the property of the husband, and was in no sense the wife’s money (or cow, or land). Plenty of nineteenth-century novels revolve around what was by then called a “marriage settlement,” but the point was to cement the marriage by making the wife dependent. Getting mad is much more attractive when your daddy gave you a pile of “mad money” (or a “mad cow” for that matter (was this, I wonder, the origin of “mad cow disease”)).

      • @Kristor
        It is tool of concentrating wealth:

        “Schlegel and Eloul expanded on Goody’s model through further statistical analysis of the Ethnographic atlas. They argue that a major factor in determining the type of marriage transaction is the type of property controlled by the household. Bridewealth circulates property and women, and is typical of societies where property is limited. Dowry concentrates property and is found in property owning classes or commercial or landed pastoral peoples. When families give dowry, they not only ensure their daughter’s economic security, they also “buy” the best possible husband for her, and son-in-law for themselves.”

        “Dowry gave, at least in theory, women economic and financial security in their marriage in the form of movable goods. This helped prevent family wealth break-up and provided security to the bride at the same time.[24] This system can also be used as a premortem inheritance, as once a woman is presented with movable gifts, she may be cut off from the family estate.[27]

        For many, dowry has become a greater financial burden on the family, and can leave families destitute based on the demands from the groom.[24][28] The demand for dowry has increased over time.[29]”

        But as we all know how it is detrimental to the daughter’s survival and marriageability and the fruits of such a system is rotten as we see. Which I suspect is contributors to murder of daughters in both Greece and Rome in Ancient times.

  5. everything that white people generally and particularly and so noticeably like, respect or enjoy is white supremacist, and must be wiped out.

    Not so much just enjoy, like or respect, but particularly those things at which they excel.


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

You are commenting using your 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.