A Brotherhood of Man and Other Delusions (Revised and Expanded)
“In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.”-C.S. Lewis
Most of the delusions that presently animate the social aspect of neo-liberalism are derived from an Enlightenment tradition of white male thinkers; these men generally did not have the entire globe’s populations in mind—let alone replacing their own—when they set quill to paper. Additionally, there was far more of a dialogue on the nature of man than someone like Dave Rubin would have you believe—for every John Locke there was a Thomas Hobbes. Granted, even the most damaging ideas put forth by Rousseau and the Sephardic Spinoza are not directly taught in school anymore as DEMs (Dead European Males) are rendered persona non grata, but the ideological basis for liberalism was provided by these men centuries ago. What’s become of liberalism is a grotesque distortion such that the majority of Enlightenment thinkers would find it unrecognizable, but cherry-picked and often corrupted Enlightenment ideals of liberty and equality, along with a reversion to the inherent universalism of Christianity minus the infusion of indigenous European energies, perhaps paradoxically a concomitant abandonment of Christianity by many, the late-stage empire blues, the ennui and apathy of material excess, whites’ natural predispositions to altruism and a relatively weaker sense of kinship ties, and last but certainly not least the profoundly negative influence of Jewish interlopers at every level of society, all have contributed to the mutated social aspect of liberalism that we see today. Recently, the New York Times inadvertently debunked its own narrative by adhering exactly to Dunbar’s number with the following post:
Next time you’re feeling smug about your Twitter following consider that only about 150 people will likely come to your funeral and only 50 of those will consider you a “buddy.”
Well that’s interesting, because I thought the West had become not a civilization (what even is “whiteness”?), but at turns the world’s largest charity and the world’s global population dump. We are meant to care about every (non-white) person on this globe with the ferocious ardor for which we would our own children or spouses or parents, and yet here we are informed that we are all precisely as tribally-oriented as we always have been. To behave otherwise is literally psychotic; no, Hillary Clinton, it does not take a village, especially not one of horrifying drag queens, shit-handed crop-pickers, and machete-wielding Boko Haram members. This global village of “ours” might be exotic, be consider what exotic really means: election-rigging, declining infrastructure, acid attacks, honor killings, environmental degradation, animal abuse, female genital mutilation, cannibalism, freakish and long-eradicated (in the West) diseases, corruption, criminality, rape, and murder.
We are instructed that to condemn barbarism is the height of ignorance, and that the “civilizations” of the largely pre-modern races of this planet are just as good as—better, in fact, and certainly more “authentic” than—ours, yet we literally built the modern world. This “brotherhood of man” feverishly sold to us in every advertisement and piece of propaganda and collegiate classroom is a delusional nightmare for Indo-European Man. To buy into this fantasy is to welcome extinction. Europeans have never been a global majority, or anything close to it, yet we were able to conquer the globe and the moon. Despite the fact that access to whites is apparently a human right, the simple truth is that they need us, but we emphatically do not need them. In fact, multi-culturalism and all of its Cult-Marx tentacles only cripple Western Man and make him fraught with unnecessary baggage material, emotional, psychological, and cosmic.
Whites are rivaled only by the Northeast Asians in the scope of their undertakings, but the Occident has the one key ingredient the Orient, despite their empirically higher IQs, lacks: the Faustian Spirit. When properly channeled, we are unstoppable. When derailed, however, we internalize and we self-destruct. Where Northeast Asians, especially the Chinese, have a terminal lack of creativity, and where Jews are neurotic and arrogant, whites can be excessively altruistic and open, and often internalize rather than, as the blacks and browns do, externalize. Our introspectiveness, often intense, can be a great positive or a great negative, depending. Hence why self-harm and suicide are so high amongst whites as opposed to blacks and browns, and why violence toward others is so much higher in those population groups. Maybe you find this “offensive,” but you should really consider the sheer amount of conditioning that has caused you to feel this way. That’s right—feel. Not think. Blacks and browns are decidedly more violent than whites and Northeast Asians. It is exceedingly rare to hear of a white person shooting another over stepping on his sneakers or for some other perceived slight. This is also attributable to impulse control and time preference factors, ones that will have your life destroyed if you advance as reasonable alternatives to non-white/-Northeast Asian dysfunction as opposed to “systemic racism.” There is systemic racism, but it is precisely the opposite of what the Western Pravda would have you believe. For Joe Sobran:
The unadmitted premise of the [civil rights] movement, ironically enough, was white supremacy and black inferiority. It was assumed that black children couldn’t get a proper education in segregated schools; only if they sat in classrooms with whites could they become achievers. But public schools, once integrated, didn’t remain integrated long; whites fled as soon as they could. Again, the alleged reason was “prejudice” — or what Bill Clinton would homiletically call “fear of those who are different,” as in “the color of their skin.” But whites weren’t afraid of skin pigment; they were afraid of violence. They went to great lengths and great expense to escape it. Even liberals notoriously put their children in safe, i.e., mostly white, schools. If sheer, irrational racial prejudice motivated “white flight” from black-dominated cities, it should also have made whites equally fearful of Orientals and other nonwhites.
There is an obvious difference between defensive and aggressive prejudices — a distinction liberalism doesn’t acknowledge. When one group sees another group as threatening and is actually willing to pay a high price to avoid close contact with it, the prejudice would seem to have at least some foundation. The liberal response to this market judgment is to outlaw the market, making contact compulsory, without asking why such a policy is necessary. When such policies fail, liberals conclude that even more drastic policies must be imposed. Even today, black “leaders” like Jesse Jackson appear to be white supremacists. Jackson admits that blacks pose a certain crime problem; he once confessed that when he hears footsteps behind him on a dark street, he is relieved if he turns and sees a white man. The huge disparity between interracial crime committed by blacks and that committed by whites — the ratio is about 50 to 1 — causes no comment; a violent crime committed by a white against a black makes national headlines.
It is exceedingly obvious, if you are paying attention, that none of this is about “equality.” Were that the case, why are whites discriminated against in every arena from college acceptances to hiring? Why the incessant need to ascribe cosmic guilt to whites for things they didn’t even do—worked against in fact? Why is “treason to whiteness loyalty to humanity,” but the Democrats rigging the mid-term elections is described as “Hanukkah”? Why the condemnation of asking, “Is it good for whites?” but the celebration of naked self-interest for other groups? Why can you literally get away with murdering someone who called you a naughty word so long as you belong to a protected class? How exactly does one “flee poverty and crime” when they are of the milieu that produced it in the first place? Surely they bring it with them. Minorities are treated by the Left as though they have no agency and yet we are expected to acknowledge them as full equals under the auspices of “Democracy.” This presents a host of problems which are irreconcilable unless one realizes that agency—even among a great many whites—is, in fact, not a given in every or even most individuals, and though it is not always tethered to a higher intellect, its absence is almost certainly a given where there is a lack of it. Even W.E.B. DuBois acknowledged the reality of the “Talented Tenth.” Returning to Sobran:
The forbidden prejudice against blacks makes its appearance indirectly, in the low expectations everyone has of blacks (contrast the high expectations of Jews). Jackson and others, in making demands on whites, always imply that blacks are incapable of achievement on their own, outside the areas of sports, entertainment, and the performing arts; they can’t even envision blacks as creators, inventors, innovators. They can see them only as recipients of white largess, cogs in the white man’s economic machinery. Though they complain about the injustice of casting the black man in menial roles in the white man’s world, they seem unable to conceive him as a builder of civilizations. Jackson and his ilk may not realize it, but they constantly reinforce the idea that blacks aren’t even capable of moral responsibility. By blaming the white man for everything, they teach that only the white man is morally autonomous, and that blacks can be only what the white man chooses to make them. The white man becomes the Superman — the black man’s excuse for failure. Whatever Jackson’s words say, this is what his actions mean. Nor do many others seem to disagree. As Bernard Shaw remarked, a man’s deepest beliefs are to be inferred not from the creed he professes, but from the assumptions on which he habitually acts.
Put another way, “Ye shall know them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:16). As Sobran said himself, “In their mating and migratory habits, liberals are indistinguishable from members of the Ku Klux Klan.” As with Silicon Valley or the state of Israel the refrain is the same: “Diversity for thee but not for me.”
On an international level, most of the member states of the United Nations fill the role of the dysfunctional, the degenerate, and the alien in “our democracy,” exploiting our insane inclination to grovel and degrade ourselves on behalf of fantasies of equality for their own gain. The natural aristocracy of mankind voluntarily offers itself to be stripped bare and plundered believing this somehow contributes to the universal betterment of humanity. As Revilo P. Oliver wrote:
Although the “liberal” and Marxist cults have doctrinal differences as great as those that separate Lutherans from Baptists, they are basically the same superstition, and whether or not we call them religious depends on whether we restrict the word to belief in supernatural persons or extend it to include all forms of blind faith based on emotional excitement instead of observed facts and reason. When those “atheistic” cults scream out their hatred of “Fascists” and “Nazis,” they obviously must believe that those wicked persons are possessed of the Devil and should therefore be exterminated to promote holiness and love. And when they sees “racists,” who impiously substitute fact and reason for unthinking faith in approved fairy stories, their lust to extirpate evil is as great as that of the Christian mob that dragged the fair and too-intelligent Hypatia from her carriage and lovingly used oyster shells to scrape the flesh from her bones while she was still alive.
The “elites” insulate themselves from consequence on the backs of lies and deceit, and they exploit the mad passions of the mob, that unthinking mass susceptible to the stoking of resentments and petty jealousies, so quickly turned murderous. Order is so difficult to maintain, and chaos so quick to consume and destroy. Africa is in a state of seemingly-infinite regress because the majority of its people do not have the capacity to produce, let alone be stewards of, high civilization. The state of savagery in the inner cities of the West is the disgraceful product of allowing feral Third Worlders to first take residence within our nations and secondly to allow them to accost our people and destroy our societies from within by this fever dream of “equality,” which betrays itself by advancing the ill-equipped beyond their station and holding contempt for the bearers of European civilization. To expect non-whites to be stewards of white civilization is as preposterous a notion as any. This madness can only end in factionalized violence and tribalism if the current trajectory is maintained. This is the time for solutions, not feckless platitudes and opprobrium of “racism” by the conservatives who’ve stood athwart history and stopped nothing. Instead, they’ve been run over and vaporized into a bloody mist by the bullet train of neo-liberalism. Liberalism as a social and cultural ideology runs cover for the neo-liberal economic system to which it lends credence. Consequently, you have these bizarre paradoxes where “anarcho-communists,” whatever the hell that is, are effectively carrying water for the globalist establishment. There’s much more to be said about Cultural Marxism as neo-liberal economic smokescreen, but I will save that for another piece. Suffice it to say, while the present “culture wars” are deeply important, for the Establishment, they are ultimately ancillary to neo-liberal economics.
The maximal movement of people and goods is central to the neo-liberal project. If you can convince enough people to buy into the suicidal delusions of the John Lennon “Imagine” variety, your work is made that much easier for you will encounter minimal resistance. Universalism, egalitarianism, equality—these are the fancies of a child’s imagination at best, the delusions of a madman or the ramblings of a fanatic at worst. The madman, the zealot, or the helpless child—all are enfeebled, weakened, exposed, and ultimately defenseless to the predations of the world. One does not voluntarily climb into a den of vipers otherwise.
 In the court case Atkins vs Virginia, the death penalty was over-turned because the defendant had an IQ below 70, which, given what we know about the break-down of average IQs among the races and, consequently, of a great number of these people being imported into the United States, again confounds notions of equality and agency. The contradictions are seemingly endless.
 This is not helped by the corporate and moneyed interests’ plundering of the continent and their hand-in-glove work with dysfunctional and corrupt regimes, to say nothing of the military-industrial complex’s enormous financial windfalls from Africa’s seemingly endless civil wars. Africa is, essentially, an anarcho-capitalist’s wet dream. There’s much more to say about this, such as why the explosive growth of African birthrates is being subsidized and why the white colonists were hung out to dry during the independence movements, but that will be addressed in a future piece (or two).