On the proper attitude of whites toward black people

One’s first thought is that it would be silly to have a single attitude toward a whole race of people. Within any race, some will be admirable, some scoundrels, most unremarkable, all created for eternal glory with God but not all achieving it. However, our culture and its institutions tell us that blacks are the innocent victims of white wickedness. If we were asked to pity them for their poverty and suffering, that would not be a problem. If we were asked to admire them for their courage and resilience, that would not be a problem. One group of people can pity or admire another without any unhealthy psychic stress. Instead, blacks are held up as a rebuke to whites; we are supposed to feel guilty and ashamed of our ancestors and ourselves on account of their/our mistreatment of blacks. Because of this “shameful past and present”, we are not allowed to venerate our ancestors and treasure our culture as all healthy peoples must. Faced with such a demand, the only natural responses from whites are either 1) submission, that is to accept one’s shame, become an “anti-racist” and renounce one’s own people, or 2) resentment, at its most extreme to hate blacks as those who have robbed us of our dignity. Both responses are unjust. Our ancestors are entitled to our pious devotion, and most blacks are decent people who have never done us any harm. The black race, or rather the idea of it, is a tool of the mostly-not black ruling class that indeed hates us. Furthermore, it’s worth remembering that the most faithful branches of the Catholic and Anglican Churches are in Africa, so in ecclesiastic battles, we support the black African bishops against the degenerate heretical bishops from Europe.

So, if we’re not to grovel before blacks, and we are not to resent them, and the culture insists that we not simply judge them as individuals (deciding to ignore race is now said to be itself “racist”, and even if you don’t agree about that, the fact that everyone else is screaming about race makes it impossible for it not to be the first thing you notice about someone), what sort of attitude should we take?

Thinking about the present

Everyone agrees that Black America has problems. They make less money, do worse in school, are victims and perpetrators of crime at higher rates, are less likely to have intact families and grow up with one’s father married to one’s mother than the other races. The explanations suggested are 1) white racism (meaning both the effects of slavery and the ongoing conspiracies whites allegedly continue to perpetrate against them)–this being the only officially allowed explanation, 2) genetic inferiority of blacks (that they’re naturally on average less intelligent, more prone to violence, or whatever), and 3) problems with the culture, meaning some combination of the culture of blacks and how the surrounding culture interacts with them–in what is admired, what is rewarded and punished (e.g. glorification of gang criminals, bullying of black kids who do well in school for “acting white”).

In fact, we know that 3 is the correct answer for the worst black problems, because their crime rates and family structure used to be so much better before the 1960s. The proximity of slavery, white racism, and black genes certainly haven’t gotten worse during that time, but the culture certainly has. No doubt some of other races dislike blacks, but anti-white bigotry is much more prevalent, whether one considers Regime propaganda, official discrimination against whites and in favor of blacks in businesses and colleges, or interracial violent crime (they attack us more often than we do them). Furthermore, when talking about “racism”, I think one should distinguish automatic hostility toward another race from simply having a preference for one’s own race and attachment to its culture. Both would fit the definition of “racial discrimination”, but only the first is usually immoral. In fact, the second is entirely healthy and is found among all peoples (except, to their discredit, liberal whites).

There is an unstated assumption that all sides of the argument about Black America’s problems make–namely that the state of white people, in particular liberal, college-educated, upper-class white people, is the healthy norm to which other groups should aspire. What should happen, everyone seems to agree, is that blacks should start going to college at the same rate as liberal whites, get the same kinds of jobs as liberal whites, be equally represented in liberal white hobbies, not be arrested for crimes any more often than liberal whites. The only point of disagreement is whose fault it is that blacks don’t have the social profile of liberal whites.

In fact, liberal white culture is profoundly unhealthy, and if blacks were to suddenly adopt the liberal white social profile in income, attitudes, and behavior, they would suffer profound losses in addition to making undeniable gains. It’s true that white liberals are very “well-educated” (if going to college and having credentials indeed constitute an education), very law-abiding, very conscientious in pursuing their careers, very good at avoiding things like teenage pregnancy and smoking. However, this is largely the result of their docility. Their same scrupulosity that leads them to work hard and follow rules also leads them to join internet and physical mobs, to believe everything they read in the newspapers, to despise useful trades and pursue useless college degrees, to turn against and denounce neighbors, parents, and children who run afoul of the official ideology. Conversely, the orneriness that enables one to defy public hysteria and be loyal to one’s own friends and family in defiance of a wider society also inclines one to get drunk and brawl in bars and to engage in other antisocial behavior like that. I sympathize more with characteristically “black” faults, which are at least normal human faults. Better an excessive loyalty to kith and kin that interferes with law enforcement than an ideological purity that abolishes loyalty and tolerance altogether.

In fact, the same downsides of urban black culture are somewhat present in rural conservative white culture as well. Liberals like to taunt us conservatives for being overweight and poorly “educated”, for breaking the law and having children out of wedlock. (I actually suspect that as a culturally lower class white I’m psychologically more similar to lower class blacks than to my white professional class peers.) Furthermore, white liberal conscientiousness and docility is historically anomalous even for our civilization. Ancient, medieval, and early modern whites were much more violent and criminal, much more difficult to control. True human excellence requires combining both docile and ornery sets of virtues, and while some individuals achieve this, no contemporary culture does a good job of fostering both.

Thinking about the past

Of course, the loudmouths in the media who are driving all of this are not primarily concerned with helping blacks; the movements they’ve promoted have been profoundly harmful to black communities. The main point is to demoralize whites. If slavery and segregation are such obvious and horrific evils, and our ancestors failed to recognize this, doesn’t that cast doubt on their wisdom and on the value of the traditions they’ve handed down to us?

The only way to know is to consider what they actually believed, give it a hearing and see how unreasonable it actually is. Slavery has been practiced by all peoples in most times; the ancients and Muslims practiced it extensively and never saw anything wrong with it; neither the Old Testament Jews nor the Church pronounced the ownership of slaves immoral. They were right not to, because the word “slavery” has been used for a wide range of arrangements of varying morality and moral hazard. Suppose you were presented two men of a foreign culture and unfamiliar language, and the first apparently is authorized to give orders to the second and to punish disobedience. Is the second man a slave, a serf, a vassal, a subject? Is the first man a master, a king, a commanding officer, a warden? It’s actually more difficult to tell than you might initially think. You may protest that slavery is clearly distinct from all these other forms of subordination because a slave is property, but the word “property” also lacks a cross-cultural univocal single meaning. Property even of an inanimate object like land was not, for most pre-modern peoples, stuff you could use or abuse in any way you liked, but something held in trust. Slave societies from pagan Rome to the Muslim Middle East to Catholic Brazil to the Protestant American South all recognized that slaves (meaning here those they called “slaves” or a word translated as “slaves”) were human beings with some rights that should be respected, however often they were violated in practice. (Among the stronger arguments of the abolitionists is that, regardless of the intrinsic morality of slavery, slave owners will often be tempted to abuse their power without much risk of consequences, and such situations are best avoided.) It could be argued that 18th-19th century bourgeois liberalism’s absolute ideas of private property, which poorly fit the relationship of slave ownership, inspired the abolitionist movement as much as liberalism’s devotion to freedom.

One can, it’s true, find “anti-slavery” statements from Church authorities (and presumably from Muslim authorities as well, but I know their history less well), because servitude was acknowledged as a misfortune analogous to poverty. It is a pious deed to give away one’s own possessions to alleviate another’s poverty, but it’s not a moral requirement. On the other hand, it would be a sin to make someone poor by stealing his possessions. Similarly, manumission was encouraged, humane treatment demanded, and kidnapping/enslavement condemned without asserting any inherent sinfulness in owning slaves.

In summary, the moral questions and human relations in slave societies (whether from our past or other cultures’) are more ambiguous than commonly thought; our ancestors–as well as the other peoples of the world, almost all of whom thought owning slaves acceptable–were not moral imbeciles for recognizing this. Nor is there anything remarkable about Western civilization in this regard. All the peoples who denounce whites (including, of course, black Africans) themselves were historically slave-owning peoples.

On the other hand, our ancestors were also surely right to regard slavery as a misfortune, so blacks are right to honor their ancestors for surviving terrible hardships. A healthy development would be to shift focus from the cruelty of slaveowners to the resilience of slaves, from what breeds resentment to what breeds pride, the sort of selective focus that allowed Roman Christians to honor the martyrs while being patriotic servants of the Empire.

I shall have even less to say about segregation–defined, as contemporary writers usually do, not as “legal” segregation but as whites having their own neighborhoods, schools, clubs, sports teams, or churches–because it is the historical norm for distinct peoples to live separately and preferentially mix with their own kind (that’s how they remain distinct), and I’ve never heard any moral argument against it except the unproven claim that what other people do naturally to preserve their culture, white people do out of malicious hatred for other peoples. I tend to assume that all peoples are pretty much alike. I see that Blacks, Hispanics, Jews, and Native Americans like to have their own social clubs and organizations, their own college dorms, their own ceremonies. This seems entirely healthy to me, and I think it would be churlish for me to complain that I’m not invited and to try to take away something that makes them happy and does me no harm. I don’t see why the same attitude shouldn’t apply to whites.

What is a properly pious person to do when faced with the claim that his ancestors were wicked? First of all, he should never apologize for his ancestors. Never. Under no imaginable circumstances. That would be the most wicked betrayal imaginable, and anyone who does it is scum. Are we to imagine, then, that our ancestors were sinless? No, if we truly love them, we will not tell ourselves things that are gratifying to ourselves but do them no good. Although they are for us icons of God because of His use of them in our creation, in themselves they were (or are, in the case of living parents) sinners like us, although their sins are largely of the personal kind with which we are familiar, rather than sins of being oppressors. Furthermore, our deceased ancestors are by no means beyond the reach of our help, and they may be in great need of it. We remain connected to them by common membership in the Body of Christ, and this spiritual connection allows God to work His mercy for them through our prayers and penances. Anyone with true filial piety might consider devoting some time, perhaps fasting one day a week or offering extra prayers each day, for the poor souls in purgatory. In public, you stand by your ancestors by defending them from their detractors. In private, you stand by them by sharing their work of purgation.

41 thoughts on “On the proper attitude of whites toward black people

  1. “The explanations suggested are 1) white racism (meaning both the effects of slavery and the ongoing conspiracies whites allegedly continue to perpetrate against them)–this being the only officially allowed explanation”

    This is kind of a strawman, though it reflects what a lot of the left thinks. Different leftists like William Julius Wilson and Adolph Reed argue that Blacks were systematically discriminated against pre-1970, which had the consequence that a disproportianate percentage of blacks were stuck in low-skill blue collar jobs, as opposed to skilled trades or white collar professions. Because of this, when the good paying low skill industrial jobs started to dry up starting in the 50s and on through the 70s, Blacks were hit hardest, leading to the development of the ghetto underclass. So in this explanation, post-Civil Rights Act racism is largely irrelevant, while the long term effects of earlier racism is important. There may or may not be holes in this explanation but it is an alternative to the 3 explanations you give.

    The problem with culture as a cause for problems with American blacks is that it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. If the NOI or the Order of St. Peter Claver or Jordan Peterson goes into the inner city and fixes ghetto male culture through running military academies or something, this might help some of these men go to trade school or college and become integrated members of society. But for the men who can’t get skilled trade jobs or white collar jobs, whether from a lack of aptitude or from there being a dearth of good jobs, improvements to culture won’t do much. In US society, low skill workers are considered a dishonorable quasi-slave caste who deserve to live in 3rd world conditions. People with those kind of terrible economic prospects will revert back to deformed behaviors, unless they have a support network of people who are better off–which is not the case with the underclass. (I have a cousin in his late 20s who flunked out of college who works as a near min. wage retail worker. He probably won’t become a criminal because every one of his extended family members is middle or at least skilled working class, as are his college friends. A black guy working at the Carnasie McDonald’s whose mother was a crack addict may not have this luxury).

    • Thanks for these observations. I’d say lack of economic opportunity and respect for the non-college educated is another way that white conservatives are similar to blacks. Saying that we have similar economic and psychological profiles doesn’t mean we’re going to be friends–they have no incentive to befriend us when they have more powerful friends offering them a deal of being the highest status ethnic group that we can’t match–but it means we can understand each other. For example, I understand why many would find it demeaning to be policed by another race.

      • I am assuming you mean “friend” in the Schmittian political sense? I do find it odd that blacks don’t resent their white leftist “friends” more. That is really only natural, and the culture would lead them to it. There have been the many historical examples like Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X, and the modern day fringe of black nationalism, but these have never gone anywhere. If white conservatives could form a counter-elite, why not a coalition with black anti-leftist counter-elite?

    • That sounds like the logic affirmative action was built on, which has obviously been a complete failure. I suspect there is something to it, though. Eliminating segregation and instituting AA failed probably in large part because those blacks who moved on up moved out and away from their ghetto friends, family and neighbors, only to descend back for photo shoots and “community organizing.” Hispanics, I think, did a much better job of helping out the “primos,” though not perfect, of course.

    • One flaw in Wilson’s argument is that menial jobs were not hardest hit by deindustrialization. The black janitor disappeared but janitors did not. There may be something to the second part of Wilson’s argument, although role models require more than mere proximity. For at least one hundred years, well-meaning people have observed that blacks fare poorly in a competitive labor market, because they are, on average, less efficient and docile than their competitors. The decline of black barbers is an interesting case study, since black barbers entered competition with the Italians with a strong prejudice in their favor. Likewise black domestic servants.

      • For at least one hundred years, well-meaning people have observed that blacks fare poorly in a competitive labor market, because they are, on average, less efficient and docile than their competitors. …

        Interestingly, just over one hundred years ago, the psychologist William McDougall, a ‘race realist’ of his time, wrote of “Negro docility” and contrasted the black man with the red man with respect to this characteristic, writing that the former was more submissive and adaptable than the latter:

        The Negro has in a way adapted himself to the position imposed upon him. … But the Red man has never let himself be impressed into the social system of the dominant Whites; in some peculiar way he has proved resistant; he dies rather than submit. … The same difference has appeared clearly throughout the West Indies, where the more adaptable black race has superseded the red men… I am not sufficiently acquainted with the two races to attempt to define the racial qualities which have determined this difference.
        I will suggest merely, on the basis of a slight knowledge: (1) that the Negro race is pronouncedly extrovert, and that the red men are equally extreme introverts; (2) that the black race is more strongly gregarious and sociable; (3) further, that the red race is strongly self-assertive, while in the Negro the submissive impulse is strong. …

        When handled with “firmness” and “kindness”, the Negro is the ideal follower:

        When Negroes have been well handled, with firmness but with kindness and consideration, as by the French officers who have trained the black regiments of France, they have proved themselves to be capable of extreme courage, devotion, and loyalty; to be, in short, ideal followers.”

        And in a footnote: “Shaler… insists upon the imitativeness and the eminent faithfulness of the Negroes to their white masters…”

        From Is America Safe for Democracy, a series of lectures published in 1921.

  2. You point out that crime rates are much worse among blacks than whites. Then you say that culture is the best explanation for this because black crime rates were much lower before the 1960s.

    But the black crime rate was also much worse than the white crime rate before the 1960s. This has been true as far back as we have data. Culture/environment explains the rise in absolute terms. It doesn’t so obviously explain the persistent gap.

    Charles Murray remarked last year that black crime rates and academic performance are much worse than other races *everywhere* in the world. The obvious explanation is genetics. People are biased against this explanation because they think it’s mean or possibly evil. But it’s the most plausible answer.

    • I’m not sure why we’re forced to pick explanation 1, 2 or 3. I think the most likely explanation is all three contribute and the reality is that all 3 aren’t entirely independent of each other. I think it’s likely that historic (not current) racism as well Sowell’s “black rednecks” hypothesis has something to do with how things are and this effects culture and I think it’s been shown that there are hereditary differences (first things like University of Minnesota’s twin studies and now genetic studies like GWAS) as well.

      Peter Frost, among others has argued that Europeans got a big intelligence boost during the late middle ages and that some west African groups may have had significantly higher at the same time (and some like the Igbo still might be higher – there’s not good GWAS data).

      You’re correct to note that black crime rates have been high as far back as we have data – Professor Dwight Murphey documented this in his monograph on lynching.

      I’m open to any of the three explanations being the reason for statistical differences but my best guess is it’s all three in some unknown and not calculable proportion.

      Note that genetic differences are compatible with evolution (even the “micro” only version) and also with 6000 year old creationism and genetic “devolution/entropy) consistent with The Kolbe Center for creation and Cornell geneticist John Sanford.

      BTW, despite the repeated internet claim (often by Catholics) that Count Gobineau invented race, the ancients and medievals wrote about race. Medievals believed that blacks were descended from Ham. See the writings of Archbishop Isidore of Seville for an example.

      I grew up in a low-skill, blue collar family in an area that was probably 1/3 black and was too small for suburban defacto segregation and I found black culture to be very different than white blue collar culture, at least in the 1980s. With the white culture “Coming Apart” (Charles Murray) maybe the two cultures are converging.

      Bottom line is blacks are created in God’s image and are potential members of our most important tribe, the Catholic tribe, and are just as deserving of caritas as anyone.

    • Your point may be true, but the absolute rate (crime, illegitimacy) has increased really dramatically and is, I think, what most people really care about.

      • People were very concerned about this phenomenon long before the civil rights era. If we could go back to 1950s numbers, it would not mean everything is fine. The black murder rate would still be several times higher than the white murder rate. Black academic achievement would still fall way below white performance.

        It took a massive propaganda campaign to make people pretend not to notice (and eventually the pretense degenerated into real belief).

      • I think it’s human nature to see such things in relative terms. Grandpa said “don’t go into colored town or you might get knifed or shot with a Saturday Night Special.” I suspect the violence in early 20th century American cities was much higher than you think.

  3. > I’ve never heard any moral argument against

    Well, the usual argument is that white kept good things on their side of the line and left blacks with bad things. The usual counter-argument is that whites built the good things, which then quickly devolves in a never-solvable debate of equal or inequal opportunities.

    A more productive angle is asking the question of *enough* opportunities. I am a Euro, it is not my place to answer that.

    But. I have found that a lot of things are incredibly easy to do if government regulation does not make it hard. I used to run a restaurant with my father. It was easy, except the regulation part. It is not much different from running a household, except the part of buying directly from farmers. But that is not hard either. When I was a kid, me and another 7 kids spent the afternoons with a retired schoolteacher. That could easily make up for low-quality schools and zero capital investment needed, just paying a low fee. The best school is indeed a log with a teacher on one end and a student on another. It does not have to be expensive.

    So if I would find myself segregated in a part of a city with bad schools and no restaurants, I would not despair. It can be fixed rather easily (if regulation does not make it hard).

  4. Clearly, there are going to be rival opinions as to the proper attitude towards “blacks” depending on whether one is asking racist whites or anti-racist “whites?”

    As it goes for racist whites, “suspicion” is probably the most optimal attitude towards “blacks” where any further engagement will tend to exacerbate or alleviate the initial uncertainty.

    As for the anti-racist “whites,” there will be this private hesitancy masked by a public openness to State sanctioned subjugation. A proper attitude is mandated by the “heard” leaving the individual anti-racist “white” virtually speechless.

  5. It would be good to disabuse them of the delusions that result in racial hatred of whites.

    And saving their souls. But genuine racial hatred. In the same sense of Edom against Israel and Amalek against Israel. Has to be dealt with.

    You don’t reason with people who are already set in killing you all in the same way the Haitians slaughtered French men women and children even though they did nothing to deserve it:

    “The course of the massacre showed an almost identical pattern in every city he visited. Before his arrival, there were only a few killings, despite his orders.[28] When Dessalines arrived, he first spoke about the atrocities committed by former white authorities, such as Rochambeau and Leclerc, after which he demanded that his orders about mass killings of the area’s white population should be put into effect. Reportedly, he ordered the unwilling to take part in the killings, especially men of mixed race, so that the blame should not be placed solely on the black population.[29][30] Mass killings took place on the streets and on places outside the cities.

    In parallel to the killings, plundering and rape also occurred.[30] Women and children were generally killed last. White women were “often raped or pushed into forced marriages under threat of death.”[30]

    Dessalines did not specifically mention that the white women should be killed, and the soldiers were reportedly somewhat hesitant to do so. In the end, however, the women were also put to death, though normally at a later stage of the massacre than the adult males.[28] The argument for killing the women was that whites would not truly be eradicated if the white women were spared to give birth to new Frenchmen.[31]

    The people chosen to be killed were solely targeted based on skin color rather than political association with the French or nationality.[33] Despite choosing solely on skin color, the white victims were almost entirely French, who were one of the two main targets of the 1804 Haiti massacre that Dessalines and his company specifically declared a massacre on[33] as virtually the entire white population composed of French people. Under Dessalines’ instruction, mulattoes were also targets along with whites.[33][4][page needed] It was said that he ordered every white and mulatto to the square in front of the Government House and kill them all at once.[34] Mulattoes often times were more French aligned, having more rights than the African slaves in addition to owning property and sometimes even being educated in Europe. A civil war, the War of Knives, had previously broken out between blacks and mulattoes[4][page needed] which caused Dessalines to order a massacre of mulattoes.[4][page needed] This was met with some contention however. When accused of being the one who orchestrated this massacre, Toussaint said “I told Dessalines to prune the tree; not to uproot it.”[35] About his targets of the massacre, Dessalines’ slogan exemplified his mission to eradicate the white and mulatto population with the saying “Break the eggs, take out the [sic] yoke [a pun on the word ‘yellow’ which means both yoke and mulatto] and eat the white.”[33] Upper class whites and mulattoes were not the only target; any white and mulatto of any socioeconomic status was also to be killed, including the urban poor known as petits blancs.[33] During the massacre, stabbing, beheading, and disemboweling were common.[36]””


  6. Bonald,

    That strain of black nationalism does resent being ruled by white leftists, and I think a hypothetical white conservative counter-elite could agree to greater self-determination for a black nation. I think it’s possible black counter-elites, part of the community first and hardest hit by anarcho-tyranny, as the rest of the country follows could eventually want to give it up, along with the high status, for the dignity of ruling themselves. They are small, though prized, fish in a big but increasingly shrinking pond, and could prefer to be big fish in a small pond.

  7. In fact, we know that 3 is the correct answer for the worst black problems, because their crime rates and family structure used to be so much better before the 1960s.

    At least we can all agree that we should go back to a world in which whites took for granted that 2 was true and acted accordingly.

    • The old catechism says that all races are intellectually equal (or something like that – I can’t remember the exact wording) but I imagine they meant “qualitatively” or some such.

      • I expect you’re right. It probably intended to make an Aristotelian point about all humans having an immaterial active intellect and thus all human intellects being essentially the same (and essentially distinguishable from animal and angelic mental processes).

        That being said, it does seem likely that people once thought less about differences in cognitive ability between individuals or racial averages. Nowadays, people loudly deny it, but I have not seen evidence that people in the past thought about it much one way or the other. I recall Descartes saying that, as far as he could tell, everyone has about the same intellectual ability; it’s just that some people don’t think in clear and productive ways, but this was obviously a sales pitch for his method. Surely they noticed from time to time that this or that person was particularly stupid, but what we call IQ had less of an effect on one’s ability to make a living, and it wouldn’t even occur to people to make it a measure of a person’s worth. (They were more likely to take physical prowess the measure of a man, as was the case in high schools even several generations ago, before the advent of Nerd Supremacism.)

      • Well, it’s always possible for the Churchmen to actually do what they were accused of regarding the Galileo affair.

        I haven’t read or don’t recall whatever you’re talking about, but the limiting interpretation Bonald suggests perhaps saves it. All rational animals are equal inasmuch as they are rational animals is certainly a safe refuge. Tautologies (at least nice, tight ones like this) are nice in that 1) they are true, and 2) they generally have no practical implication.

      • Ah I found it:

        “(b) Emotionally and intellectually all races are the same.

        Researches have discovered a universal sameness in ideas of right and wrong: there is a universal moral code even among the most primitive of tribes. For example, all men consider consider wrong the murder of those who are not enemies, cruelty to children, incest and irreverence. If the moral code were the result of the fear of reprisal, why was not stealing considered wrong when committed against an enemy? Science almost compels the conviction of the origin of mankind from only one pair of ancestors; Religion declares it.”

      • I don’t know what you are quoting, but this is misleading where it is not wrong. Human races are all human, and so more closely resemble each other than they resemble sea slugs or pelicans, but all the evidence says they are not “the same.” I don’t doubt that all men say it is wrong to kill a man who is not their enemy, but their definitions of enemy vary widely. Men agree that cruelty to children is wrong, but they do not agree on what counts as cruelty. And even these general moral scruples are not universal. As much as ten percent of humanity has no moral sense apart from fear of reprisals

      • Thanks. The farther one moves away from things, the more they look alike. That may be why they say, ‘the devil is in the details.’

      • They seem to be speaking of universal (near universal??) morality for the same reason as C.S. Lewis – basic Christian aplogetics against the modern atheist mind, the existence of the natural law, etc.

      • Darwinism can deal with natural law, since any society that defies the Logos or Tao must be eliminated. This conforms to the great Old Testament lesson that people perish when they are persistently wicked.

      • The old catechism also says:

        “Manifestations of the soul, like cleverness, talents, traits of character, etc. by which children resemble their parents, are due to the attributes of the body that they derived from their parents, or to training in the family.”

  8. “In fact, we know that 3 is the correct answer for the worst black problems, because their crime rates and family structure used to be so much better before the 1960s.”

    If blacks knew they were better off why did they demand the end of racial freedom of association?

    • It’s not clear that the end of segregation is the main negative cultural influence. Even if it was, I can’t imagine blacks objecting to a system that makes them the highest status group, the group that is morally superior. Status is the highest human good, for which we would sacrifice any other. Be honest, wouldn’t you accept any trade-off if in return your people could have the status of blacks?

      • No, because I’d say blacks are parasites (like feminists) who are unable to compete fair and square against white men. They are merely exploiting the dominant group’s moral posturing out of weakness. It’s unmanly.

        My answer to your question is what Daniel Patrick Moynihan said when Nixon asked him what to do about the blacks. His answer – benign neglect. NIxon, being a Quaker, didn’t listen to him and started the forced busing and much more.

      • Status is the highest human good, for which we would sacrifice any other. Be honest, wouldn’t you accept any trade-off if in return your people could have the status of blacks?

        But if status were really the highest human good, we would all be anti-racist homosexual liberals.

    • Personally, I avoid the word “parasite” as it sounds like exterminationist rhetoric. The word “hustler” (in the negative, con-man sense” often comes to mind but I don’t know if that’s a post Civil Rights thing where blacks were incouraged to be “hustlers.”

      I too think white men were better at all but unskilled labor (and I’m not 100% sure about that either). I came from skilled blue collar labor on one side of the family. When referring to blacks’ skills, the phrase “n….r-rigged” was often used by the old men. Later replaced with the more PC “afro-engineered.” All sorts of individual exceptions notwithstanding.

      • People were killed in Haiti for being white. And even the friendly whites were murdered. You must read the article I linked.
        I think it’s imperative to know when exterminationist rhetoric towards you is employed like in Rwanda before the Tutsi’s were systematically exterminated. But only stopped by the Tutsi Army.
        You may not want to do evil. However evil won’t care about your high minded appeals. They will kill you and all your loved ones without remorse given the opportunity.

      • I can recognize the danger to me and mine without resorting to exterminationist rhetoric myself.

      • While hiking in the Rocky Mountains, I have led my family awary from bears without having any desire to shoot them (the bears, that is).

      • @JMSmith

        “I have led my family away from bears without having any desire to shoot them (the bears, that is).”

        Humans however are absolutely responsible for their actions. Especially evil.

        And unlike bears won’t be content to leave you alone. But will attempt to find you and wipe you out.

        As if Satan will leave a Christian community in peace. Why would his servants ever leave us alone?


        Sure. However it looks to me as a foreigner. That so many whites are lambs to the slaughter. And because of ideology unable to properly organize to deal with real threats.

        Too indulgent to evil people who would like them dead, just because they are black or any other of the aforementioned victim hierarchy.

        Its a lack of the proper proportion of Justice and Mercy.

      • Yeah… But avoiding strong and explicit language where it fits just is part of losing out BIGLY on the “hustle.”

      • The real, on-the-ground, universally-applicable issue is that subset of the “black” “community” whom “whitey” dare not give a name and who wreaks disproportionate havoc on civil society itself while the superset of “blacks” hear no evil, see no evil and never publicly speak ill of their criminal underclass whose murder, rape and robbery resume is second to none.

  9. Very nice post, Bonald.

    I like your point that for blacks to aspire to and achieve the educated liberal ideal would not be a healthy development. I can’t remember if it was you or someone else who remarked something to the effect of which culture is worse: one which results in neighborhoods with a significantly higher chance of getting murdered, or one in which parents willingly send their children to universities where Marxist and liberal professors have the opportunity to destroy thousands of impressionable souls.

    I also like your comparison of slavery to poverty: this helps illuminate how certain theologians (e.g., St. Augustine) could have regarded the former as an unfortunate consequence of the fall and as something that should be ameliorated to the extent that it can be, but not as something that is necessarily intrinsically evil.


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 )

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.