White Guilt by Shelby Steele



What follows is an analysis of the phenomenon of white guilt, which finds its origin in the Civil Rights era and the preceding cultural milieu. It is an honest a critique of the mindset of white guilt, which may be seen as condemnation by some, especially to Baby Boomers. I do not mean to insult or condemn, though I do offer criticism, which is a form of judgement. I pray that Baby Boomers who may read this post please accept my apologies for any perceived offense, as my only intent is to articulate the underpinnings of white guilt that we may build a brighter future free of its burden. I dedicate this post to the Baby Boomers in my family and my life, with love. —Butch


Some of my family members of the Conservative Baby Boomer persuasion recently told me about a book, White Guilt by Shelby Steele. A friend of theirs, also of the Conservative Baby Boomer persuasion, an accomplished physician, had recommended it highly. I’ve been attempting to Red Pill these family members for years, so I jumped at the opportunity to engage with them on the book, an analysis of the racial phenomenon known as white guilt. A few clicks on Amazon and I had a paperback copy in just a couple days.

The book is rather short, divided into 4 parts:

  1. The Story of White Guilt: A autobiographical section where Steele tells his story of being born into segregation, his general experience of it, and his awakening to “black consciousness”. This is an overview of the field of battle on which the anti-white paradigm was born. 63 pages.
  2. An Expanding Guilt: Coming of age in the Civil Rights era, Steele’s expanded “consciousness” of his “blackness”, his adoption of the black militant posture, a general analysis of the Baby Boomer (hippie) sociological phenomenon. This is an overview of the flowering of the anti-white paradigm and the destruction of pro-white American values. 28 pages.
  3. The Ways of Blindness: Steele introduces the terms “white blindness” and “dissociation”, and offers an analysis of the shift in the value system as the Baby Boomers came of age. Here he offers some solid analysis of how the Boomers lowered the status of pro-white America through shaming and created an alternative moral model of the “new man”. 41 pages.
  4. Dissociation and Culture: Where Steele bemoans the death of Western values which died along with pro-white values. 5 pages.

The book was published in 2006, during the second George W. Bush administration. I will admit that this book review is about a decade late, and that I have a considerable amount of hindsight.

This is a work of literature: Steele does not use footnotes, historical analysis, comparative analysis, or references to scientific data. There are almost zero numbers or percentages in the book. This book is entirely literary, with many bald assertions and a bit of pop psychology. In essence, there is almost zero appeal to science, only literature and some reference to recent history and current events. Obviously, the book was intended for consumption by an average white American conservative audience, and is not a book of serious scholarship, though I did find it to contain some valuable insight.

Executive Summary

Steele uses the term white guilt as shorthand for the sociological phenomenon of whites committing civilizational suicide, though he never mentions civilizational suicide or white genocide. In essence, Steele, being of the Conservative Baby Boomer persuasion himself, argues for a return to color-blind meritocratic conservatism, where blacks are offered free and open access to Western civilization in America (as now), but are both required and encouraged to work and produce, as they were under segregation and slavery, but now as full equals. Steele defends the morality of the Left which requires whites to open Western civilization to all comers, but he also holds a contradictory belief in the values of Western civilization, which created indisputably the greatest civilization to ever exist. Steele has an acute conservative awareness of the decline of American society since the Civil Rights era, while also holding a typical Baby Boomer opinion that the changes which caused this decline (civil rights) were a moral necessity and achievement which should be celebrated, a clear logical contradiction from a pragmatic viewpoint. He then vaguely and, I think, halfheartedly argues for some sort of return to color-blind meritocracy, one which focuses on maximizing the human potential of blacks rather than equalizing outcomes through redistribution and affirmative action (which Steele views as racist). In essence, Steele asserts that “Dems aRe the Real Racists (DR3)” who engage in the “soft bigotry of low expectations”, in typical conservative fashion, and this is how he substantiates his advocacy of return to color-blind meritocracy. Steele argues that the Civil Rights movement was necessary, moral and good, but bemoans the loss of Western values and realizes that the promise of Civil Rights and the Great Society never materialized for blacks or whites.

While I don’t find Steele’s DR3 arguments for “personal responsibility” to be workable, he did offer some analysis of the problem that I did find useful, and I feel that the read was worth it, if only to understand the mindset of the Conservative Baby Boomer better.

Meritocracy is White Supremacy

I’d like to begin by addressing Steele’s conclusion: a call for color-blind meritocracy. A little blurb on the back of the book says that “acclaimed race relations scholar Shelby Steele sounds a powerful call for a new culture of personal responsibility”. This is Steele’s essential conclusion, which considering that this book was written in G. W. Bush’s second term, is an all too familiar conservative talking point.

The problem is that Meritocracy is White Supremacy. Or, I could use less inflammatory rhetoric and state that meritocracy results in hierarchy. The analysis of DR3 is correct but pointless: the Left is convinced that blacks cannot compete with whites on a level playing field, which is essentially a “racist” conclusion, because addressing race realistically in the current year is “racism”. Of course, the DR3 analysis is pointless because racism is a concept that is only used to harm white interests, and because the Left is a coalition of non-whites against whites, the Left is impervious to charges of racism. Then there’s the fact that the Left excuses the low performance of blacks with narratives of “institutional” or “systemic” racism, thus once again hiding their pragmatic racial calculation behind a veil of anti-racism.

Let’s imagine that our society took Steele’s call for “personal responsibility” seriously and implemented an essentially libertarian platform which removed all diversity quotas, affirmative action, housing subsidies, busing laws, government oversight of racial lending outcomes and welfare/redistribution. Blacks already exist primarily as an underclass today despite all the social engineering palliatives. Everywhere that there are large numbers of blacks we find crime, poverty and dysfunction.  Is there really any doubt that the black/white socio-economic gap would widen even further? This is the inevitable outcome, when you have an average white IQ of 100 and an average black IQ of 85 competing in modern America where IQ is more determinative of socio-economic outcomes than ever.

If we actually implemented a color-blind meritocracy, there would be almost zero blacks that could qualify for college, and thus any sort of professional positions. Without affirmative action, diversity quotas and lowered standards, we would have far fewer blacks in middle class jobs. Without government makework positions such as the postal service, DMV, and other government bureaucracies favoring ‘diversity’ there would be even less. This would reduce the average black income even further, limiting the black pool of housing locations, limiting high dollar car loans to blacks, limiting credit card offers. Without government intervention in housing and lending, most banks and landlords would find ways to avoid lending to blacks, except for specialist “predatory” lenders and slumlords. The ghettos would grow even larger. Certainly the changes that we would witness would be seen as an increase in “white supremacy” from the viewpoint of the Left, because such policies would increase the black/white socioeconomic gap.

Thus, meritocracy is white supremacy: A fair and even-handed implementation of a merit based system, the fabled “level playing field”, has the practical result of segregating blacks into a permanent underclass in white countries. Steele fails to address any of these issues in the book.

Dunning-Kreuger and Wishful Thinking

Of course, Steele is a high functioning “black” (although, from his photos he appears to have more white blood in him than black) who can compete with whites on a level playing field. He’s one of the talented 1% of blacks who could fare well under a meritocratic system. Because of this, he suffers the Dunning-Kruger effect: a bias where smart people underestimate just how difficult a task is for an average person, because for them it is relatively easy. Steele takes a solipsistic view of the problem, assuming that most blacks are like him. He buys the equalitarian narrative and attributes poor black socio-economic performance to slavery and Jim Crow. This self-delusion about the reality of collective black ability is the only possible way that he could justify supporting meritocracy. This is mere wishful thinking, because we have plenty of evidence that his assessment is wrong, and the Left knows it, which is why they condemn meritocracy as white supremacy.

From his stories, Steele came from a high functioning black family who did quite well under segregation. His parents fought to get him into a white school, where he was the only black. They owned houses that they rented out, and they actually had to hide their high income from others. He tells stories of pining to be accepted into white society as a boy, and how painful the racial barrier was for him. Steele is married to a white woman.

Shelby and Rita Steele

His family could compete with whites on a level playing field, and essentially that is all they wanted: to be accepted as full-fledged members of the white in-group. Given this context, it’s understandable that Steele advocates for meritocracy. He just happens to indulge a cognitive bias which allows him to refuse to acknowledge the biological component of black dysfunction, and to recognize that he and his family are statistical outliers. When building public policy, we must do so according to aggregates, finding the mean value of distributions. It is illogical to produce public policy which only works for less than 5% of a given population. We must produce public policy based on the average member of a group.

In short, Steele’s call for color-blind meritocracy, a common Conservative Baby Boomer theme, is based in bias and wishful thinking. It’s simply a non-starter because his solution would result in greater segregation between blacks and whites.

Rejecting Black Nationalism

Steele relays his awakening into the avant-garde of black militancy in the first part of the book, but then he simply rejects the notion of black separatism or black nationalism which is the hallmark of much of the black political thought. Given his biases, his desire to be fully accepted into white society as a full in-group member, this is understandable. However, Steele rejects black nationalism out of hand, refusing to take the idea seriously.

Shelby and Rita Steele

He accuses Malcolm X of promoting the “ugly theme of separatism“. No analysis, no argument, simply the label: ugly.

He dispels the validity of black America as nonsense, saying “as if we still share a singular destiny”. For Steele, as for most all Conservative Baby Boomers, it is axiomatic that blacks and whites in America will be forever joined in a political union. Any other notions can be rejected without argument because they violate this unquestioned assumption.

Steele writes “Freedom can be seized only by individuals. And the fact is that we blacks are free“. Of course, he neglects to mention that sovereignty can only be seized by groups. By limiting his frame to the classical liberal framework of individualism and freedom, he hides the group self-determination known as sovereignty. I view this to be sophistry, attempting to win his point with a half-truth, leaving a portion of the truth untold. Black freedom can only be guaranteed through black sovereignty, or black nationalism. Just as white freedom can only be guaranteed through white sovereignty, or white nationalism. There are many good arguments that the freedoms of any nation or ethnic group can only be guaranteed through sovereignty, foremost of them are historical examples. What exactly was the point of the American Revolution, if it was not that the Founding Fathers believed that the freedoms of the members of the distinct American nation could only be guaranteed through sovereignty? Why do blacks seek ever increasing black oversight in government and policing, if not that they feel their freedoms are protected via sovereignty? It’s unfortunate that Steele does not deal at all with the topic of sovereignty.

In fact, we see many black now want re-segregation as an attempt to regain black sovereignty. They want black-only schools and spaces. Of course, they want whites to fund this segregation. Essentially, many blacks now want a divorce from the white majority, but they also want alimony payments. This is the problem with black nationalism for those who seek to continue black parasitism of whites: black nationalism is a divorce with no alimony or child support. It is the path to true adulthood for black America, one in which they control their own distinct destiny and are entirely responsible for the outcome.

I personally support black separatism and black nationalism as the means to black sovereignty and I recognize the desire of all distinct ethnic groups to seek to steer their collective destiny via sovereignty. I even support the right of white people to seek their unique collective destiny via sovereignty, as outlandish as that logical conclusion is in the current year.

Blindness to Humanity

In part 3, The Ways of Blindness, Steele gets rather flowery and literary in referencing the Ralph Ellison’s 1953 novel Invisible Man. In this context, the assertion is that whites are “blind” to the “humanity” of blacks. So, “invisibility” is the “unseen humanity” of blacks. I found this literary device to be rather unwieldy and counter-intuitive, because in essence it means that to see color is to be blind to humanity. Conversely, to be color-blind is to see humanity. Therefore, in this metaphor to be color-blind is to have sight, and to see color is to be blind. You can see why I find this device to cumbersome. It’s obvious sophistry when what you see with your own two eyes (the reality of racial differences) is labeled blindness.

This section did clarify “humanity” for me. I now understand its usage by the Left much better for having to work through this inverted metaphor. Humanity is itself a universalist concept, it is an assertion of unity. Humanity is another way of saying the tired old trope: there is only one race, the human race. Humanity disguises and downplays racial and ethnic differences. Within the context of Invisible Man, to see humanity is to blind oneself to in-group and out-group differences. To accept humanity is to reject kin. Ellison and Steele both wish to be accepted as full members of the white in-group, so they seek to destroy the conceptual validity of white kin selection and in-group preference by asserting kinship only to the super-group: humanity.

This is the upshot of human rights, the universal brotherhood of man. It is an enlightenment concept that is both universalist and individualist. To view a man as a human and nothing more, then we assign him membership in the largest possible group, which has the effect of eliding his membership in sub-groups. The truth is that of course he still belongs to ever decreasing circles of sub-groups: human > race > nation > tribe > clan > family > nuclear family > individual. It’s a bit of a trick to make a man an absolute individual by asserting his membership in the largest possible group. I believe this trick plays on Man’s natural desire to be a member of a group. “Once there is only one in-group, then there are no more out-groups”, goes the fuzzy thinking.

While today the concept of meritocracy is seen as a rightist position because it favors whites over blacks, it must be understood that its birth was as a reaction to the rigid class system of the ancien régime or feudal orders. In those day, the class system (feudal order) based on group or class differences was rightest (stable order valued over change), and the notion of disregarding group affiliation or station of birth and viewing each man as an individual to be judged on his own merit, was on the extreme left.

To use Ellison’s cumbersome metaphor: to see an individual you must be blind to his class or group affiliations. In this way, individualism is itself a universalist concept, and is functionally indistinct from humanity. To accept individualism is to reject group affiliations. Thus, the modern rejection of kinship and in-group preference (labeled as “racism” in the current year) is an extension of the rejection of class and group preference begun during the enlightenment.

Thus, while European enlightenment thinkers created the individual by asserting that the only moral course of action was to ignore group membership, the modernist cosmopolitan thinkers re-created the individual by asserting that the only moral course of action was to ignore sub-group membership in favor of the human super-group membership. This human concept plays to Man’s psychological need for group membership, while playing to leftist individualist conceptions, and creating the conceptual framework for a one world government. Quite a trick, that.

Now I see clearly that any talk of humanity or human rights is a call for the rejection of all group boundaries and to view every individual as devoid of group identity and motivation. I also see clearly that this is an impossibility, as every man has some sort of group identity with which he will refuse to part. In practice, this “seeing of humanity” is to ignore groups by seeing them as collections of individuals, which leads to any number of problems. It is training oneself to not see the forest for the trees.

Take the Muslim problem, where a small but significant portion of Muslims in the West are jihadis willing to kill Westerners for their in-group’s benefit. If we “see their humanity” and view them all as a collection of individuals, rather than as members of a collective (a competing tribe), then we are limited in our response to the jihadi attacks: the legal system. We are only able to hold individuals accountable via the legal system. In effect, this means that we must wait until the jihadi performs a “criminal” act (for example, murdering dozens of teenagers at a Manachester concert hall), then and only then can we prosecute.

Law is the method by which we hold individuals accountable. How do we hold groups accountable? We hold groups to account through war. When we view jihadis as members of a group (Arab or Muslim), then we can perceive their actions as acts of war, rather than as criminal offenses. As long as we maintain the fidelity to individualism and only “see humanity”, then we are powerless to act against the invaders as a group, to hold them all accountable for the actions of their in-group members. This allows them to act collectively for group interests, while the individualists are helpless to defend themselves and must suffer endless “terrorism” as “part and parcel” of living in a big city. Only by recognizing group affiliation can we hold groups accountable.

Assertions of humanity are attempts to create in the mind a collective human destiny, which obviates any collective national or ethnic destiny. National sovereignty and humanity are mutually exclusive concepts. If we are all going to be a collective humanity, then we are all going to be ruled by a collective human government, a global government which will enforce all human rights (and laws). If there is only one group, the human group, then there can be only one law, the human law, and to have one law you may only have one government. Therefore there can be no nations, no national destiny as long as we recognize humanity and human rights which logically has the concept of global governance embedded in its premise.

Dr. Bronner’s All-One soap. This manifesto used to be printed on every bar’s wrapper.

Humanism and humanity are entirely leftist constructions, which Ellison and Steele use to undermine the in-group cohesion of whites intellectually. Yet, Conservative Baby Boomers hold up writers like Steele as rightists while they espouse concepts which destroy the ability of whites to defend themselves from invasion and dissolution. Only national identity, national destiny and sovereignty stand to prevent the homogenization of the world’s unique and beautiful peoples into One People, One World, One Government.

The Morality of Civil Rights

Steele is absolute in his assertion that the “Civil Rights” movement was a moral necessity and was a shining moment of triumph, at the same time that he recognizes that the promises of the Civil Rights movement and Johnson’s Great Society never materialized. In fact, Steele is very aware that by many metrics, black America is far worse off under the new regime than they were under segregation.

REAL communism has never been tried!

The subtitle of the book is “How blacks and whites together destroyed the promise of the civil rights era”. Steele views the promise of the Civil Rights movement as having been subverted, as a noble project which was implemented improperly. Let me guess: Real racial integration has never been tried! I don’t mean to be snide by making the comparison to communism, but I think it’s important to notice some similarities.

Communism, like racial integration, is a leftist project designed to remove class boundaries and achieve social harmony. Communism has failed over and over and over, and yet even today, you can find many American true believers who insist that true communism has never been tried… because the reality of communism never aligned with the theory of communism. See the No True Scotsman logical fallacy.

Similarly, the reality of racial integration and the social harmony that was projected to result from integration and multiculturalism, has never aligned with the theory. Under communism, when the project failed there was always a capitalist scapegoat to blame: groups and individuals who ruined the promise of communism by not believing enough in the project. What do we see today when the promise of racial integration never materializes? We have another group of scapegoats who ruin the promise of racial integration by not believing enough in the project: the evil racists who infuse the very fabric of American life with their “institutional” or “systemic” racism. Steele, to his credit, explicitly denies the existence of systemic racism.

The communists were 100% convinced that free market capitalism was immoral, just as the multiculturalists are 100% convinced that nationalism and “racism” (ethnocentrism) are are immoral. The parallels between communist true believers and integrationist true believers are very interesting.

Communism was eventually judged to be an unworkable system due to persistent failures of the ideology to materialize, not mention the hundreds of millions of deaths. The theory of communism was eventually shown to fail the Darwinian test: it killed far more than it helped and the people rejected it, like a patient rejecting an organ transplant. Again and again.

As I stated, Steele is aware that in many ways blacks are objectively worse off now than they were under segregation. I’m not arguing for segregation, which I think is unworkable, but I am arguing that we have plenty of evidence that proves that racial integration is a failed project. Steele admits that it has failed himself when he admits that white America had to sacrifice their very Western value system of individualism, meritocracy and liberty in order to attempt to integrate blacks into white society. This is the “soft bigotry of low expectations”, the American attempt to exempt blacks from the Western value system of personal responsibility, while simultaneously attempting to integrate them fully as equals, which is obviously an insuperable contradiction.

Of course, Steele believes that we simply didn’t do it right. Where he writes that we “destroyed the promise of the Civil Rights era”, what he means is that we didn’t implement the theory properly. He wants us to continue the project of racial integration, but this time subjecting blacks to the meritocracy and developing their human potential. I argue that this is nothing more than the “white supremacist” solution, and will simply result in further re-segregation, due to the biological realities of the differences between Africans and Europeans. We are simply separate, distinct, unassimilable ethnic groups and there is no changing the reality.

We tried racial integration. We really did. It failed because it was doomed to fail. It was just another Utopian dream of a perfect society, which has caused more suffering than harmony. Globalism, multiculturalism, and racial integration are all the same idea: that we can create a perfect social order if we all drop our various racial, national and ethnic identities and accept our Universalist Individualist identities as The Human Race.

The writing is on the wall. Globalism and multiculturalism have been tried and they failed, just like communism. If you are a true believer, than you can never be convinced otherwise. It may be that it will take Rivers of Blood to convince most Europeans. I would like it if we could be smarter than that, but I have read a bit of history, and history is a slaughter bench.

Higher Consciousness and The New Man

Steele does a fair amount of analysis of the shift in power dynamics that occurred during the ’60s. One concept I found useful to deconstruct was higher consciousness. Steele doesn’t deconstruct it, he simply uses the phrase, but in my view higher consciousness  or expanded consciousness means nothing more than new religion.

One can be conscious of many objects within one’s perception. If one can expand one’s perception, then one can expand the set of objects of which one is conscious. The Baby Boomer generation contained a group known as the hippies, who used “mind expanding” hallucinogenic drugs. Jim Morrison’s The Doors was named after Aldous Huxley’s book The Doors of Perception which details Huxley’s mescaline trips in the ’50s. So, expanding perception (opening the doors of perception) is “mind expanding” or “expanding consciousness” to reach “higher consciousness”. Hallucinogens are commonly known to produce “religious experiences”.

In 1967, Timothy Leary, spoke at Golden Gate park to 30,000 hippies at the “Human Be-In” where he famously stated:

Like every great religion of the past we seek to find the divinity within and to express this revelation in a life of glorification and the worship of God. These ancient goals we define in the metaphor of the present — turn on, tune in, drop out.

The higher consciousness of the ’60s that Steele tells of is nothing more than the birth of a new religion, where religious experiences could be purchased for a couple of bucks. Americas youth were lured to this new religion with tales of “free love” (easy sex), Rock’n’Roll and the status of subscribing to a higher morality. All they had to do was to reject the value system of their parents entirely.

Christians often describe themselves as “followers of Christ”. What does it mean to “follow” in this sense? It means to attempt to be Christ-like. It means to encounter new situations and ask yourself “What Would Jesus Do?”. It means to hold in your mind a mental model of the perfect man and attempt to use this model to negotiate your present life.

Holy Man Jam, Boulder, CO  Aug. 1970Steele tells of how the Baby Boomers were offered a new model, the model of the “New Man”. This “New Man” was the embodiment of “expanded consciousness”, meaning he was the avatar of the new religion. They crafted for themselves an image, a narrative, a mental model of how this “new man” would act, and to act in this manner was to express the ideals of the new generation, to be seen as a man of high status. So, just as previous generations had been “followers of Christ”, this new generation followed the “New Man”, which they invented out of whole cloth during drug-fueled love-ins. It was quite a feat, engineering this new religion. We should spend a lot of time investigating this  miracle of modern mind-control.

It’s important to realize that we live in a dominance hierarchy, and we seek climb this dominance hierarchy. Our station in the dominance hierarchy is determined by our status. We signal our status to others constantly with our mode of dress and speech, the type of stores we frequent and cars we drive, our taste in music, art and literature. Almost every aspect of our lives is a signal. In the ’60s, growing out your hair and wearing a leather fringe jacket and driving a motorcycle, smoking weed, taking LSD, and engaging in “free love” signaled an expanded consciousness, a higher status. Holding the correct opinions about racial integration also signaled a higher consciousness, and thus a higher status. Mouthing platitudes like “make love, not war”, signaled enlightened higher status.

The “New Man” defined the new model for which status was awarded and thus station in the dominance hierarchy, with the new model having its basis in the value system defined as “higher consciousness”, the new religion. Conversely, holding to traditional values and opinions of race relations signaled “lower consciousness”, a “narrowness” of mind or “Close-mindedness”. The Baby Boomers mercilessly shamed, mocked and ridiculed those who refused to worship the ideal of the “new man”, because shame, mockery and ridicule are the tools used to lower the status of the targets.

With the help of mass media (and none of this would have been possible without mass media), glorifying the hippie revolution at every turn, the Baby Boomers were able to forge a new religion and with it a new value system to replace traditional Western values. Between media and academia, a new consensus was manufactured and racial integration was at the heart of it. What most people didn’t understand was that this new movement would be hell bent on undermining Western values and thus Western civilization forever. What was described as “adolescent rebellion” that would soon pass into maturing was nurturing a value system which ran directly counter to the values of Western civilization. The birth of a new value system was the birth a a culture war, or war of the cults, also known as a religious war.

In his book, Steele celebrates this birth of “higher consciousness”, then decries the death of the Western value system and urges a return to it. He doesn’t seem to understand that these are two contradictory goals: the higher consciousness is virus with a payload designed to undermine Western values of truth and justice with relativism and social justice.

This section was the most insightful for me. Helping me to understand the usage of “consciousness” that I was previously unable to fully articulate and to view the ’60s as the beginnings of a religious war. It also help me to clarify the importance of status signals and value system that undergird our society.


White Guilt contains the central themes of Baby Boomer Conservatism: an unthinking intellectual conformity to leftist universalist individualist concepts (created by years of mass media exposure) which create a cognitive dissonance with their intuited desire for a return to traditional Western values. Baby Boomer Conservatism has failed to conserve anything, and this is because it is based on the leftist value system. It is simply impossible to conserve traditional values while simultaneously espousing modern values. To Baby Boomers, even the conservative variety, there is no greater sin than racism, which means that they have no intellectual ground to stand on when trying to preserve (conserve) Western values, which are uniformly rejected by non-Westerners (non-whites) and integrationists and which are upheld by Westerners (whites). To preserve Western values requires a value system which holds the preservation of whites as its highest value. Isn’t it obvious that the preservation of the Jews is the highest value of Israel? How could ‘conservatives’ in Israel protect the Jews from invasion and dissolution if they held ‘racism’ (ethnocentism, preferring and privileging Jews over non-Jews) as their highest value? The Baby Boomer Conservatism’s insistence on cleaving to ‘anti-racism’ (anti-white) as its highest value is why it fails to conserve anything, because what it aims to conserve, at root, can only be conserved by conserving the white population.

The Western project has been to create powerful societies built on the natural law of reciprocity. Reciprocity, not equality, is the basis of the Western value system. To treat a mentally handicapped man in exactly the same way as a normal man in the court of law, not taking into account his handicap, is to treat the equally, but unjustly. To treat the two men differently, taking into account their differences is just, but not equal. Taking differences into account is just, because it passes the test of reciprocity: if I was the mentally handicapped man who did not fully comprehend his actions, then I would want my lack of comprehension taken into account. That is justice.

The racial integration project failed because blacks and whites are different. The Left, in an attempt to render justice, decided to create a dual system (asymmetrical) where whites were held to one standard and blacks were held to another standard. In some sense, this calculation may be seen as just. The main problem though is that the Left consistently maintains that blacks and whites are equal, they then use neo-Marxist oppression narratives to assign blame for unequal outcomes between blacks and whites to white “racism”. The justification system is not just a lie, it is now a blood libel. White privilege is an oppression narrative of the original sin of whiteness. This oppression narrative has increasingly expanded as white society has gone to ever further extremes to engineer away black and white differences. We have now reached a situation where whites are getting dangerously close to losing their demographic majority in almost all white countries, while simultaneously anti-white narratives (assigning blame for all the worlds ills to the shrinking white demographic) are rapidly expanding. There is little doubt that these increasingly hysterical anti-white narratives will be used to justify all manner of physical violence against whites, should they lose their majorities.

It is in this context of increasing likelihood of mass violence against whites that we are seeing increasing resistance to mass immigration and integrationist policies, to multiculturalism and globalism, by younger generations who sense that they will be the targets of racial violence (as the Baby Boomer generation dies of natural causes in relative luxury). The sins of the fathers may likely be visited upon the heads of their descendants, as a hated white minority is attacked by a growing non-white majority, driven by racial hatred created by the anti-white narratives generated by the ancestors to justify their integrationist policies.

Integrationist policies have observably failed, but they now have a momentum of their own. The age of White Guilt is over, as we can no longer afford the luxury of Utopian humanism and one-worldism. We must now face the harsh realities of racial difference and tribal conflict in our country, our cites, our neighborhoods, our schools and our homes thanks to the massive multicultural experiment which gambled away our homogeneity, peace, harmony and sovereignty.




Dear Butch: Am I a Leftist?

BrightAbyss replied to my Dodging Leftward post. I thought it would be easier to respond on a new post than to put a longish response in the reply. I have responded inline.

“I like that you did your homework.

Couple things:

Just because I support gender equality, revolution, re-engineering society to mitigate climate change, and i’m against the plunder and domination of vulnerable populations by dominant institutions doesn’t mean in “leftist”, at least not how I understand it. Why? Because I don’t see the world through the prism of high school poli-sci heuristics. Those are your labels and lists, and that is the simplistic framework upon which you want to demarcate things and people to create your in-group. Yeah for you. But ‘Left/right’ is meaningless to me, and so I refuse your categories and rhetoric and all the bullshit antagonisms and logics (decisional binary sets) that go with it. Ideology is not my focus and ultimately meaningless to me – although unavoidable in subtle ways.
I’m a pragmatist and an empiricist. So I’m ‘against’ all things damaging to the human (and other) species and ‘for’ all things that might lead to a more health inducing arrangement of populations. Those are my guiding commitments. So I’m not lying I’m just refusing your game. Period.”

Hahaha! Now this is amusing: you are not sure you’re a Leftist!

Personally, I don’t buy it. You’re retweeting articles from Marxists calling each other ‘comrade’ where they emphasize the importance of building a New Left to fight the capitalist crisis. But you’re not a Leftist? Come now. Let’s drop the pretenses.

You claim to be an empiricist. Are you telling me that you have never done an empirical analysis of your own beliefs? Let’s say you did a cladistic analysis of this idea of ‘plunder and domination of vulnerable populations by dominant institutions’. That means you would try to figure out where that idea originated, because you are definitely not the originator. That sounds identical to the Marxist idea that ‘the bourgeoisie (owning class) dominate the proletariat (working class) by controlling capital (the means of production)’. And you are an anti-Capitalist. Doesn’t that mean anything to you? It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that what you are against is what Marx was against. Again, I’m not buying this bullshit.

You can refuse my labels and lists, call it simplistic and refuse my categories. The truth is you don’t like the labels. You don’t want to be labeled a Leftist. You’re fine with thinking and acting like a Leftist, just so long as you’re not labeled as such. That’s your entire point. Sorry. Words have meanings. If you walk like a Leftist, and you talk like a Leftist, then you are a Leftist, whether or not you like that label. That’s why your bullshit is so petty. You understand clearly that we have norms of language, and that by flouting those norms, by refusing to use the words and their actual meanings, that you degrade our commons. When you refuse to label something that clearly deserves that label, because the application of that label would make you uncomfortable, then that is the same as lying. I’m sure cigarette manufacturers don’t like the labels either.

“I’m against the Koch bros because they put profit over ecosystems and do some in illegal and brutal ways. I’m against Marxism because it puts bureaucracy and ideology over people. I’m for reorganizing the economy to decrease carbon emission in order to mitigate global warming. I’m against involuntary taxes (socialism) because it consolidates money in the hands of wayward institutions. I’m for small government. I’m against financial oligarchy. I’m for valuing the family and individual responsibility. I’m against identity politics and the culture of blame. I’m for collectivising modes of production (for efficiency). I’m against fundamentalism.”

Collectivising modes of production? Probably you were thinking ‘means of production’. Collectivism, as in socialism, communism, fascism… consolidating the means of production into the hands of the state. Got it. But you’re against involuntary taxes because it consolidates money in the hands of wayward institutions. As though consolidating the means of production into the hands of government institutions is not exactly the same as consolidating money into the hands of wayward institutions. The lack of logical consistency and awareness of what you are saying is astounding. Amazingly empirical.

Also, you’re not against fundamentalism, you’re against Christianity. Please stop with that bullshit. Remember: I’ve read your Twitter feed.

And I draw from a lot of sources – left and right, but mostly empirical studies. Doesn’t mean I am committed to every organization or theoretical stance I re-tweet or draw from. Life is messy and so is one’s intellectual growth. SO where do these commitments put me on your color by number chart? Left-right? 

Where does that put you on my chart? Let me see.
[Beep boop beep bop… ping!].
Yep. As I suspected. You’re a Leftist.

Look, I suppose it’s possible (in the same way that a coin landing on its edge is possible) that you are so immersed in Leftism that you think you understand the sum of all things that might lead to a more health inducing arrangement of populations, but you don’t know that the aggregation of all those things has a name, and that name is Leftism. You just think it is common sense. Of course, you would be wrong in that assessment.

I also suppose you think you are some rational atheist. You should read RadishMag’s Reign of Reason article. Or maybe Free Speech, you know, so you can do an empirical cladistic analysis of your ideas to find out from whence they originate.

Dodging Leftward

Apparently, BrightAbyss disagreed with my assessment of him as a Leftist using Marxist tactics, as expounded in my previous post: Christians and Boiling Pitch.

He feigns ideological neutrality on Twitter: 

1h1 hour ago

– ya, the problem is I’m neither “leftist” nor Marxist so your ideological frames just don’t fit. Sorry.
This is typical of Leftists. They are persons without virtue, they have a dual set of morality. They shamelessly lie to those in the out-group. I decided to take a moment to peruse BrightAbyss’s Twitter timeline to see if his interests really were not Leftist or Marxist. Guess what I found? Wait for it… a boatload of Leftism and Marxism. 
Why does he lie? Because he must. As I stated in the previous post, it is the business of Leftists to spread lies and discontent. BrightAbyss, you do know that I can read your Twitter feed, right? Why play this game? I had you pegged from that single tweet of yours that I referenced.
I have documented BrightAbyss’s tweets below. But my absolute favorite is his retweet of the article Piketty, Marx, and the Political Economy of the Internet, which states (emphasis mine):
all three reactions do not help the task of creating a New Left that is urgently needed in the situation of sustained capitalist crisis. Marxists will certainly view Piketty’s analysis of capitalism and political suggestions critically. I argue that they should however not dismiss them, but like Marx and Engels aim to radicalise reform suggestions.
Wow. Interested in creating a New Left to take on that whole capitalist crisis, are we? The Marxists are having some internal discussions on the topic? But you’re not a Marxist are you, BrightAbyss? Are you sure we shouldn’t take another look at those ideological frames of mine?
Here’s what I found on the rest of his Twitter feed. It seems that BrightAbyss is extremely concerned about Climate Change and Ecological Disaster. He thinks that all aspects of our lives should be re-oriented to address climate change. He implores President Obama to DO SOMETHING. He Tweets about oppressed minorities being crushed under the Capitalist boot. He retweets on behalf of the journal of Decolonization, which is anti-colonialist. He retweets against the evil Koch brothers. He calls for riot and a Revolution Now at some Occupy Wall Street rehash. He calls to gang rush the Capitalist Devils. He defines nationalism as pathology. He mocks others for calling out him and his causes as Marxist agitation – insisting that Communism and the Cold War are dead. (nice deflection) He tweets about how disgraceful it is to be wealthy and honored in an unjust society. Oh, wait. That sounds awfully like social justice to me. He tweets that real men support gender equality. He defines Whiteness as entitlement. He accuses others of ideological projection, while pretending that he has none. He’s openly anti-Christian, but I didn’t bother documenting that.
So we have: radical climate change support, anti-capitalism, class warfare, anti-colonialism, anti-nationalism, social justice, gender equality and anti-racism. Really, BrightAbyss? My ideological frames just don’t fit? Ha! They fit you like a glove.
Let’s look at Eric S. Raymond’s list of Leftist memes infecting the West and propagated by Marxists, enumerated in his Suicidalism post:

Consider the following propositions:

  • There is no truth, only competing agendas.
  • All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and
  • There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
  • The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
  • Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
  • The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
  • For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But “oppressed” people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
  • When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.

Having read Raymond’s list, read through BrightAbyss’ tweets that I have selected below. I think the tweets speak for themselves.

BrightAbyss, you are a Leftist and a Marxist agitator and a liar.

Boiling pitch for you.

 ·  Nov 6

“Whiteness” as kernel of essentialist racial ontologies is not about biodiversity but rather about existential entitlement.
[m]: retweeted
We can’t afford a climate movement that’s just an ethical add-on to business-as-usual. Climate action must become the new business-as-usual.
[m]: retweeted
ICYMI: As Casualties Mount, Scientists Say Global Warming Has Been “Hugely Underestimated”
[m]: retweeted
Piketty, Marx, and the Political Economy of the Internet … great new essay from comrade
If I read the word ‘neoliberal’ one more time I’m going to punch something in its pinky toe. Let’s call it what it is: corporate mafia. Thx.
Monsanto has a revenue of over $10.5 billion per year, yet it is currently suing farmers in poor countries who make less than $500 per year.
“To be wealthy and honored in an unjust society is a disgrace.” – Confucius
[m]: retweeted

Our new issue is OUT! Check it here, and please share!  

Note: Overview of Decolonization Journal

Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society is an undisciplinary, peer-reviewed, online Open Access journal committed to supporting and advancing decolonization scholarship, practice, and activism within and, more importantly, beyond and against, the academy. We believe in connecting decolonization struggles across locations and experiences, in connecting academics, activists, and artists – and their production – within larger communities of decolonial struggle, and connecting knowledge production to histories of resistance to colonial power; we believe in a lived out decolonial praxis. Decolonization is not new and we do not aspire to meet the academic demand for new and invigorating paradigms; it is not the academy we are interested in invigorating. Instead, we seek to ground decolonization in the lived experiences and histories of those individuals and communities that have and are living out decolonization, seeking to invigorate connections, struggles, and knowledges that reside beyond the academy.
[m]: retweeted

Inside the Koch Brothers’ toxic empire:

Northern Cree occupy Manitoba Hydro dam over longstanding grievances
the COMMIES are coming the COMMIES are coming! For yer guns and yer monies!!!
– commies?! LOL you do know the Cold War is over? The Red scare is not necessary. Do you have any real thoughts?
“We cannot condemn our children & their children to a future that is beyond their capacity to repair” < THEN DO SOMETHING
do you have a right-wing nutter bingo card you need to fill? Your tired arguments are all ideological projection
Insurrection is the appropriate response to inappropriate social conditions.
Emma Watson to men: Gender equality is your issue too Real men support gender equality
The cops would be powerless to stop hundreds of thousands of people rushing Wall Street with riotous intent. REVOLUTION NOW
. Stop Capitalism. End the Climate Crisis. LETS GANG RUSH THOSE DEVILS!!!
That unawkward moment when an interview with your 15 year old activist daughter is interviewed on p.2 of the daily newspaper.
Nationalism is pathology but regionalism is an opportunity to align local priorities with geo-affordances via infrastructural innovation.

Christians and Boiling Pitch

The other day I read a particularly disgusting piece of White Hate, which prompted me to write this rather Nietzschean response:

To which BrightAbyss responds:

Ah, so now I’m on top of the socioeconomic hate machine because of my Will to Power over those who would destroy me and my brothers. I smell anti-racism and social justice, two ugly babies of Cultural Marxism. Anyone who uses the word hate to denounce the other is a Leftist. Among Leftists, Hate is overloaded  to mean heresy, denoting any thoughts which a Leftist finds distasteful. My refusal to submit anti-racism may be the worst of the Leftist heresies. His use of the word socioeconomic is a reference to class, which is classic Marxism; as socioeconomic status is a primary division used in critical theory to divide oppressors and oppressed. The article that he defends even bemoans the dead end that critical race theory has encountered in South Africa. I’m sure that breaks BrightAbyss’s heart too.

You can read the thread, but the short of it is that BrightAbyss tries to pick up Christianity and use it as a moral club to beat me into submission to the Marxist ideology. Good luck with that.

This approach fails miserably because I am not terribly philosophical, ideological or moralistic. I’m thedish. My consistency is in loyalty, loyalty to my in-group and to my thede (still working on phyle). I come from a long line of Christians. I can trace my lineage back the the Revolutionary War (really more of a secession, but that’s for another time), and to a Christian doctor who was jailed, pilloried and had his ears cropped for criticizing the Anglican Church in England.

“In this sign, you will conquer”

You see, unlike most Christians in America, I understand that the current state of Christianity as BrightAbyss (mis)understands it, is a watered down, Leftist shadow of its former glory. The reason for this is that for hundreds of years now Enlightenment philosophers have reformulated Christianity in Enlightenment terms and imbued it with Enlightenment values.

To the side is a bronze of Emperor Constantine, who conquered under the sign of the cross. Christianity has been the light of the West, and Westerners have bathed the world in blood to bring Christian peace. You see, paradoxically, peace is achieved through violence. Peace does not occur in Nature, because Nature is a Hobbesian war of all against all. Peace is unnatural, it is manufactured. Peace can only be manufactured by men who have the Will to Power.

The West rose to power through the creation of Capitalism (an economic or social technology, in addition to other engineering technologies), a system which suppresses involuntary transfers of property, leaving no choice but to engage in the market. The Christian exhortation of men to behave peaceably, and to obey the authorities, has been extremely helpful in the creation of productive markets which lead to Western power. The Catholic church operated much as the House of Commons in modern systems, being the voice and advocate of the people to the Executive Branch function performed by the feudal lords, the Aristocracy. The story of the survival of Christianity through the Middle Ages, is the story of Aristocrats using violence, technology and economics to create and maintain walled gardens of civilization in a sea of barbarism.

You see, Christianity only functions in a civilized society. The rules of Christianity only apply within that walled garden, they do not exist in the sea of barbarism. This is why Christians built walls around their tiny pockets of civilization, to specifically exclude the barbarians. Christianity is a social technology, but social technologies do not work with all peoples and in all times and places. We must use the right tool for the job. To our fellows within the walled garden, we turn the other cheek. To the barbarians on the other side of the wall, we pour down boiling pitch. Get the idea?

Leftists are the barbarians, intent on tearing down the walls which keep our civilization safe. They are an infection, eating out our normative commons, dissolving norms of behavior, sowing discord and distrust in every corner. They subvert the Will to Power, spreading the lies listed in hacker hero Eric S. Raymond’s Suicidalism and Gramscian damage posts, leading to a listless and defenseless Christianity.

BrightAbyss is not in my thede. He admits in the thread that he’s not a Christian, yet he wants to throw Scripture in my face and to tell me what it truly means to be a Christian. The intellectual dishonesty and hypocrisy is astounding: Why would a non-Christian exhort me to behave in a Christian manner, to follow rules that he admits he does not believe? Well, the answer is obvious: it is a transparent manipulation. He wishes to bind me down with the chains of modern Enlightenment Christianity, which lock me onto the Progressive plantation. I’ve got your number, buddy:

We Christians have been fools. We have been too trusting. We have allowed snakes in our midst to spread lies and discontent. We have treated our enemies as though they are Christians, rather than as the barbarians and destroyers of Christian virtue that they truly are.

Christians have always been willing to fight, kill and die for their civilizations. I am no different. Leftists like BrightAbyss need to understand this: it is Christian forgiveness for those inside the wall, and boiling pitch for those outside of it. Many modern Christians have lost the Will to Power, but my eyes are open: Peace is forged through Power.

So, I don’t need BrightAbyss to tell me what Christianity means, but maybe he can help any Leftist readers with some of their other burning questions: