On orderly societies

Reading old books affords one the opportunity to (almost) travel in time and to (almost) experience an alternative reality. Who needs sci-fi, when you’ve got Google Books?

Here’s an interesting response to my thoughts on Rhodesia.

The title mischaracterizes the substance of our disagreement. I certainly make no claim that a color blind society is possible. However, I believe stability and “diversity” are not necessarily incompatible. I will, however, be the first to admit that diversity makes stability much much more difficult and that, when it comes to stability, diversity makes many core components of the modern ideal of “freedom” impossible.

Indeed, if I had to start a society from scratch and was tasked with making it as stable as possible, I would, much like the Yglesian-ideal, start with a population of Swedes, or at the very least (and perhaps largely redundantly), the population of Minneapolis.

Nevertheless, if you spend a fair amount of time reading old books, you can’t help but notice that certain societies – that have actually existed! – were quite diverse and much more orderly than our own. If you read first-hand accounts of foreigners in the Reconstruction era south, for example, you’ll notice that they constantly remark on the orderliness, industriousness, strong family life, and generally civil nature of the black population.

Rhodesia is another wonderful example, which I covered at length. The most salient point, however, bears repeating. Per capita, Rhodesia had one of the world’s lowest crime rates and smallest police forces, despite having a population made up mostly of sub-Saharan Africans.

Similar results were achieved in certain colonial societies.

These places existed. The lesson from them is not that a rainbow nation or a post-racial society is around the corner. However, their existence does mean that Detroit is not the only possible outcome for a diverse society.

Other people seem to have figured this out, as Sailer recently noted, “Look, you can whine about the hypocrisy of white liberals all you want, but you’d be better off studying their methods.” I’d suggest Ian Smith or Lord Cromer instead of white liberals, but the point holds.

If, like all good progressives, you refuse to acknowledge the existence of anything before 1968, you may still find it interesting to note that (again from Sailer), “The most striking feature of this map is relatively low rate of black imprisonment in the Old South.” It’s almost as if there’s something about progressivism that makes blacks especially violent.

My point was not to defend diversity, equality or mass immigration. My point is that we actually have lots of examples of quite orderly, diverse societies. We know what works and what doesn’t.

To use the progressives’ own favorite test, if you were behind the veil of ignorance, would you rather be born in Ian Smith’s Rhodesia, Robert Mugabe’s Zimbabwe or P. W. Botha’s South Africa? (Feel free to come up with your own examples from other parts of the world).

I guess then, we have two disagreements. The first point on which we disagree is that Rhodesia had no chance. In some sense, that’s probably true. The forces of progressivism are strong. In another sense, it’s a immaterial disagreement. If you can’t defeat progressivism, then any opposition to a race-blind society is impossible. Zimbabwe is our inevitable future. Detriotification is our best hope in the meantime.

The second point of disagreement is here:

There is a class divide here, and I suspect it means the difference between the genteel, bemused race-realism of Foseti, Moldbug and Sailer and the white separatism or white nationalism of working class whites. As a working-class white, I don’t see the overall benefit to white people of the presence of non-whites. Affluent whites in the city can’t see the possibility of living without non-whites. Who would clean and cook, and watch the children of the wealthy? But believe it or not, white people can clean, cook, and watch children perfectly well. In Canada, the hotel maids are white. There are even white hotel maids in Montana. Sailer understands this intellectually if not emotionally, but Foseti and Moldbug don’t even seem to consider the possibility.

There may be some truth to this. However, well, see here for the full response. In short, if you’re in the working class, “whites” are not and will never be your ally.

62 Responses to On orderly societies

  1. Tarl says:

    Affluent whites in the city can’t see the possibility of living without non-whites. Who would clean and cook, and watch the children of the wealthy?

    Back in the 1970s, ALL of the maids and babysitters my mom hired were, without exception, white English-speaking native-born Americans. You just can’t find people like that these days!

    Anyway, “diversity” is not the problem. “Equality” is the problem. It is tough as hell to make people “equal” even if they are ethnically the same; it is damn near impossible if they are ethnically different, especially if one of the ethnicities is insuperably inferior in talent, intelligence, and motivation from the other.

  2. Jehu says:

    Bah, you can get white maids and babysitters if you want them. The problem is, most people don’t want them. They want an ‘Other’ that they don’t have to view as being really human, or at least not as a potential member of their social circle, to do those things that they feel guilty about not doing themselves. I employ a white maid, the wife of my pastor in fact, twice a month. All of the babysitters I’ve ever employed have been white. But I’m an outlier and I know it.

    • Tarl says:

      Eh maybe the SWPL types want a non-white maid or sitter, but normal white folks want white, English-speaking ones.

      Around here, you can’t get a maid who isn’t Hispanic no matter how hard you try.

      • Jehu says:

        Tarl, do you attend a church—a small one preferably? If so I wager you can find an independent maid easily who is white. She might even be the lady who cleans the church.

      • Foseti says:

        The SWPLs that have diverse help, still choose that help carefully. I know lots of people with black nannies, but I know no one with an American black nanny (they all actually from Africa or the Caribbean).

  3. Jehu says:

    The problem with studying the methods of the white liberals and trying to get their whitopia results by applying them is that frequently, the white liberals won’t let YOU use their same methodology. Try using NYC stop&frisk et al as a Southern mayor and see what happens. It’s all who…whom, all the way down. Once the non-elite whites recognize this it will get very ugly in a big hurry.

    • My latest obsession is this phrase right here that you used – “Once [they] realize this…” Do you think they will realize it? Why? The premise of every libertarian think tank has been to ‘educate’ the people so they ‘realize’ what’s right. Then why does the culture only move one way? After reading and absorbing moldbug, are we still clinging to the fantasy of the proles realizing things? It would be far better to convert the Brahmin young

      • Anonymous says:

        Libertarian think tanks aren’t talking about the kind of thing Jehu is talking about. If they were, we’d probably already be out of this mess.

      • Jehu says:

        Once the non-elite whites recognize the game, they’re likely to stop displaying what half sigma would call ‘middle class honor’. That can and will cause the system to collapse. Even simply developing the capacity to defeat trial by jury sets in motion a chain of dominos to collapse. We’re not talking about voting here.

      • Foseti says:

        Indeed. And yet non-elite whites just don’t seem to be getting the message. As interesting a phenomenon as any other we’re discussing.

      • Jehu says:

        Give them time, and more experience with what they perceive as economic hardship. Then they’ll get the point. They don’t all need to get it either, 10-15% or so of them is more then enough.

  4. SOBL1 says:

    I consider the lower imprisonment rate of lacks in the South due to redneck social threat. Because the whites down South have a history of violence and not just placating blacks when they screw up, blacks act differently. Consider the Wisconsin state fair beat whitey night vs. the Indiana state fair that year that didn’t have that. One state has a history of 20th century progressive behavior while the other had the Klan active in the 1920s.

    I’d use schools as an example. In the Indianapolis metro area, the northern townships had the better schools after 1968 vs. the southern townships. The southern townships were known as more redneck, while the northside had the more cultured or genteel folks. In fact, a media report on the diversity of the city and lack of spread (more hogwash when compared to stats) cited a black woman saying that blacks told her not to move to the southside for because of the close minded people (hint hint rednecks). The IPS city core schools were awful decades ago, and it has spread with black migration. It’s 2013, and the Lawrence township (northeast side) schools have gone to crap, and sadly, the crown jewel of the township system (Washington Twp, northcentral side) is heading there. Blacks have slowly moved in not where good schools are, but where they think softer white people who will let them run amok and act out are.

  5. asdf says:

    You’re whole concept of a diverse society working hinges on the idea that the “diversities” aren’t allowed to vote. That’s why I think they ultimately break down. Eventually politician X finds a way to expand the vote and capture a new block of voters. Ironically its only white nationalism that could prevent such voting rights from being extended to diversities.

    I’m not down with the Moldbug link. I would like the OVs to get upidity. I don’t think it has to lead to Nazism, though it likely will if Bs allow no other outlet for it. OVs can run a good country, look at pre WWI Germany. Even Hitler is best seen as a stooge the OVs were just trying to use against Bs in desperation and lost control of. Ultimately the OVs are the only people to have ever resisted the BDH coalition. What coalition would you propose?

    Isn’t the simpler explanation that you and Moldbug are Brahmins. Reactionary internet commentary aside you go to Brahmin jobs, act like Brahmins at them, and lord knows if anyone with the power to hurt you confronted you over your sites you would take them down and renounce them on the spot.

    Your on the BDH team, so you can’t be on the other team. Specifically your on the careerist striver Brahmin team, which lets be honest doesn’t give a fuck what happens to anyone else anywhere. Maybe the sheer nonse of Brahmin idealogy is so much at times you need to complain on the internet, but your certainly not going to do anything.

    • Anonymous says:

      Isn’t the simpler explanation that you and Moldbug are Brahmins. Exactly.

      • Foseti says:

        I’m not sure either of us has ever denied such a charge, but what exactly does this explain? If you’re willing to admit that we’re 1) Brahmins and 2) not on your side, my point is indeed correct, no?

    • Foseti says:

      A few points.

      There’s a difference between a Brahmin and being on the Brahmin team. I’ll cop to the former, but not the latter. I’ll also admit that I’m not blogging to change the world. If it threatened my family/livelihood, I would shut down quick. Honestly though, I’d do as much as nearly anyone to “do something.” Frankly, your side will be mighty small if the price everyone has to pay is career suicide and social ostracism. Might makes right, and you ain’t got the might – not even close.

      Also, it’s odd to basically agree with moldbug’s (and my) point – ie that certain whites are the real enemy – and to criticize the same point. Sure, maybe the OV alliance is the best option, but if that’s your argument your 98% in agreement with me any way. White nationalists fundamentally deny the OV-B split! That’s the crux of the issue.

      Finally, you don’t really seem to have any problem with what I wrote. Does your analysis imply that Apartheid-era South Africa is a better model than Rhodesia? I think not, unless I’m missing lots of steps. Voting in Rhodesia and Singapore, etc, is quite limited and . . . controlled. Such is one of many prices associated with diversity.

      • asdf says:

        I think the team your on is determined by action not sentimate. If all of your actions are Brahmin your on the Brahmin team. Ultimately this entire exercise is little more then a place you can blow off steam safely after having to witness some bullshit at work or amongst your social circle. Even among your theoretical blogging you’ve only chosen idealogies that require no sacrifice on your part (atheism, utilitarnism).

        The size of your team doesn’t matter if it doesn’t do anything. And ultimately if you won’t make sacrifices then you’ll never accomplish anything worth accomplishing. Virtuous outcomes require virtuous actions. Sometimes virtue doesn’t get rewarded in this world.

        I won’t claim to be the perfect crusader, but I did put my career on the line to take down corruption. I had to make a lot of difficult choices. I’ve seen the, “meh, can’t fight city hall,” attitude up close and I don’t see much difference between that and corruption itself. Either you stand up against it or your a part of it. The Cathedral gains much more power from those that passively accept it then those that actually crusade for it.

        White nationalism doesn’t conclude that all white people are angels. You can find any number of white nationalists blogs that understand the Cathedral is the enemy.

        All Moldbug can offer is that the government will be dominated by opportunistic tyrants whose only goal is to loot the populace as much as they can while the populace barely tolerates them out of fear with the only goal of any member of society being to one up eachother and accumulate as much dopamine in our brains by any means necessary until we die and embrace the void.

        Traditionalism, white nationalism, etc at least offer a vision of the future in which we are not mere animals living pointless lives constantly at eachothers throats. In its basic form its exactely what they have in Japan right now but based on the unique culture of the west.


        “One way to describe the Japanese achievement is to say that they have achieved what the Nazis wanted to achieve but didn’t, largely of course because they were mad serial killers obsessed with a lot of things other than economics. Ironically, Asiatic Japan comes closer than any nation on earth to what Hitler wanted. It is a socially conservative, hierarchical, technocratic, orderly, pagan, sexist, nationalist, racially pure, anti-communist, non-capitalist and anti-Semitic society.

        Of course, it would be unfair to describe contemporary Japan as Nazi-like in any of the senses that are notorious (though one cannot help observing that she has never been contrite about her WWII actions the way Germany has.) More correctly, the architects of the Japanese system learned from their disastrous experience in WWII that the kind of society they wanted could not be achieved through a totalitarian predator-state and they calculated that it could be achieved through the forms, though not the content, of liberal democracy, which is how Japan presents itself.”

      • asdf says:

        The entire idea of virtuous outcomes without virtue is silly. Moldbug proposes that people are evil to the core and then tries to come up with a system based on that. It’s doomed to fail.

        It’s not like his neo-cameralist system hasn’t been tried before. As I read through the late Roman empire its clear that’s exactely what they had. The government, emporer, and army abandoned any pretense that what they were doing was anything but a racket. Eventually the soildiers saw the only purpose of government was to squeeze out all they could for themselves whether that was sustainable or not (remind you of anyone you work with). It got to the point that when an emporer wouldn’t pay the soildiers more then the empire could afford they killed the emporer and then auctioned off the job to the highest bidder.

        When you take away culture, ethnicity, religion, honor, and any of the higher virtues you don’t get some kind of rational neo-cameralist government trying to manage its capital stock for the long run. You get a bunch of opportunistic looters.

  6. Tarl speaks sense! This has nothing at all to do with diversity alone. It’s the toxic mix of diversity and progressivism that is the problem. A very small European ruling caste modernized Egypt and made Cairo a bohemian destination. All non-progressive successful ruling castes have been tiny and exclusive.
    If you have not or cannot defeat progressivism, then you can forget about dealing with diversity. If you HAVE defeated progressivism, then minorities are minor problems. Hell, simply allowing restricted covenants and a free market in labor will solve 95% of the problems. This is why its curious of people to whine about minorities all the time, they are what they are, its the progressivism that’s responsible for 1) Importing diversity, 2) Privileging minorities and letting them get away with bad behavior. The defeat of progressivism takes care of the situation whether or not you have diversity.

  7. Anonymous says:

    In short, if you’re in the working class, “whites” are not and will never be your ally.

    Of course. I mean look at our author.

    • Foseti says:

      Care to elaborate?

      • Anonymous says:

        You’ve kind of elaborated for me in the above comments. For many upper-middle whites, it’s not worth the risk of lives, fortunes, sacred honor, and nicely renovated rowhouses to be an ally of working class whites. However to be fair, I don’t even have a good idea of what “being an ally” would look like.

  8. Anonymous says:


    You don’t think trial by jury will just be abandoned the second whites start manipulating it for, well, pro-white purposes?

    • Jehu says:

      USG abandoning trial by jury in the face of who..whom manipulation just serves my purposes. You might recall said abandonment on the list in the Declaration of Independence. It’s a tripwire for a lot of people and profoundly escalative towards a civil war. More likely you’ll see more ‘double jeopardy’ trials with federal civil rights, but guess what, you can who…whom on a federal jury just as easily once you’ve crossed the who…whom Rubicon.

  9. thrasymachus33308 says:

    What I think really needs to happen is that non-elite whites reorganize themselves on the basis they did before the New Deal, on the assumption that the elite is hostile- the idea that the elite would *not* be hostile, and that a hostile elite is a new phenomenon, is just proof of how brainwashed non-elite whites were by the new deal.


    Mindweapon calls this WN 2.0, and is active in it.

  10. Samson J. says:

    Who needs sci-fi, when you’ve got Google Books?

    I know this is just a rhetorical question, but to answer it earnestly: good fiction is actually exciting. I only remark on this because I have, coincidentally, been thinking about the very thing recently: I have noticed, in the past little while, that reading old books solely for the thrill of encountering that pre-modern worldview has been wearing a bit thin for me. Have you had this experience?

    • Foseti says:

      You’ll notice that I do read a fair amount of sci-fi. So, I agree.

      If you find books getting stale, switch time periods. I’ve been reding some great stuff from the ’50s lately, for example.

  11. Jehu says:

    Get thee over to Project Gutenberg Australia. There are a lot of good works of fiction there—hell you can get Robert E Howard’s complete works there pretty much. Plenty of Lovecraft too, to sate the urge for the comfort of a Dark Age.

  12. Handle says:

    Book Recommendation if you’re in a World War II mood: The Ciano Diaries. Frank Sanborn references Ciano’s work with high frequency in his indispensable Design For War (which I found to be superior to Charles Beard’s Franklin Roosevelt and the Coming of the War)

  13. chucho says:

    Class membership is mostly involuntary. Sure, your economic class may change over the course of your lifetime, but your social class is mostly determined by your parents and how you were raised.

    I know nothing of Foseti’s background, but many Brahmins I know grew up in middle class families or even upper prole. They were converted to progressivism during their schooling and especially their college years when they moved away from their towns (mostly for good).

    These are the people that reaction needs to reach. They are the ones that will more likely be hurt by progressive policies (think the aging “artist” who lives in a semi-gentrifying neighborhood whose young child gets the crap kicked out of him at a dangerous public school) than their generational Brahmin peers who largely don’t even need to work.

    I see this cognitive dissonance all the time. People who listen to NPR and vote for Obama but will easily acknowledge any race-realist fact you present to them.

    This group is growing in number. They are the 20-something who lives at home and works part-time. There won’t be enough public policy jobs and grants for all of them. They are the wedge.

    • Foseti says:

      “but many Brahmins I know grew up in middle class families or even upper prole. They were converted to progressivism during their schooling and especially their college years when they moved away from their towns (mostly for good).”

      Sounds about right for me.

  14. PA says:

    It would be useful to have ‘Brahmin’ defined a bit more precisely.

    As I recall, Moldbug’s original definition is pretty open, to include all intellectuals and lefties, from George Soros to hipsters barrister on the vertical status continuum, and from Noam Chomsky to Lawrence Auster on the horizontal ideological continuum. That would makes us all Brahmins, in so far as we devote a lot of our energy to thinking and debating on serious matters.

    Also, such a definition of Vaysia (I never remember how the hell to spell that) would cover pretty much all middle class and lawful citizens who don’t happen to engage in philosophy. This class ranges from high level professionals and CEOs on down to unskilled laborers.

    I say all this because some conflate Brahmins with lefties/progs — which is very different.

  15. […] know time differences suck when you see an interesting post such as this, but by the time you wake it already has tens of comments. As I’m late to participate in that […]

  16. Lawful Neutral says:

    I’ve gotta stick up for the big F here. The people complaining about how he’s not putting his neck on the line for the race or the cause aren’t seeing the big picture.

    First, this blog is forbidden, possibly criminal, material. Discovery by the wrong people could destroy him professionally. Second, we’re in a war of words and ideas. He’s doing more for the cause than anyone target shooting with automatic rifles in rural Idaho.

    • asdf says:

      Discovering this blog might cause trouble, but even then I’m not sure. This blog has not challeneged any core principals of progressivism. What your hearing from Foseti is what progressivism was putting forward before WWII. It’s exactely what C.S. Lewis put forth when talking about the progressive element in That Hideous Strength. One should not conclude that because someone endorses HBD or eugenics that they aren’t progressives. That used to be a big part of the progressive platform. This very post is basically him saying, “I know I talk about HBD and all, but just let it be known I’m still down with diversity.” The only thing Foseti has every questioned is method, not goals.

      What exactely is Foseti/Moldbug advocating? You hate beauracrats? What is neo-cameralism if not the beauracrats taking total control and giving up any pretense of giving a fuck about any of us. I’m sure all his co-workers go home and bitch about the nonsense at work or on the news too, but its not like they share fundamentally different belief systems. They are all secular utilitarian careerists. Foseti chooses the belief system that maximizes his own wellbeing (allows him to feel above the nonsense he has to deal with, but doesn’t require him to do anything about it).

      Words and ideas don’t do anything if you don’t take action. Foseti works at a pretty high level regulating finance. Did he stick his neck out to stop any of the shenanigans going on that devestated the working and middle classes over the last few years? What’s the point of having power if you don’t use it?

      Look, I know he’s not dictator. He can’t wave a magic want and make it all go away. However, the system requires an army of people to take his attitude (hey, I’m just doing my job). Those kind of people way outnumber true believers in government. If his experience is anything like mine was he is likely surrounded by evil every single day he goes into work. He participates in evil every day. The modern beauracracy really is like N.I.C.E. It’s not an exageration. There are plenty of opportunities to do good, they do require sacrifice though.

  17. Matt says:

    Clearly diverse societies are possible. The Roman Empire was one of the most diverse societies there ever was. The difference is that they had no illusions about being an empire. A lot of America’s problems of perception come from it being an empire pretending to be a nation-state.

    The nation-state model doesn’t work when you have lots of obvious diversity, such as racial or religious. The model mostly works by papering over the remaining not-so-obvious diversity with a national myth. America tried this (with whites, blacks were ignored), but it blew up in the middle of the 20th century.

  18. Handle says:

    Just a quick note on the unlikelihood of this idea of inter-class “solidarity”. Let’s take the whole “females in combat arms” issue. Let’s look at the recent comments by two of our favorite commentators, Sailer and Derbyshire, who are both clearly against the idea, and yet..


    So we’ve turned our military into a playpen for postmodernist academic theorists, for people who think that “gender” (as they call it) is “socially constructed” (as they say) — basically, a figment of your imagination. They are gibbering nincompoops, of course; but so what? Why does it matter?


    But, so what? It’s not like any of this matters in a practical sense. If more co-ed combat degrades American military performance, it’s not like the Axis is going to win WWII, it’s that a few more brave Americans will get killed in some inconclusive puttering around in Mali or wherever.

    This kind of thing is like gay marriage: a symbolic war on the realities of biology.

    So, obviously they are both talking about “mattering” in the macro sense, I get it. And that’s because that’s mostly how the issue “matters” to them (I’ll stipulate that since recent high school graduate Private Derbyshire, 11B, is already being tracked in the system, Derb has a more personal, micro stake – though I don’t think Derb really understands how this will “matter” to his son.)

    And that’s the key. It does matter, of course, to the people in the military who have to put up with the numerous, and obviously predictable, problems that arise out of these social experiments. Derb’s quoting Waugh on, “the great carelessness of the rich,” is one thing, but at least they were careless with their own money. Social Engineering is careless with other people’s lives.

    A good example that Sailer frequently brings up is the impact of Section-8 housing voucher policy (implemented by elite-liberal whites) on the poor whites (and their vulnerable, impressionable kids) who now have to live to recent ghetto dwellers – and who can’t escape them and still stay in the city like the elites can. A conspiracy of predator and parasite against their mutual prey.

    But Sailer and Derbyshire are “societal big picture” Brahmins. Like Foseti, they’re not on the Brahmin team, but when talking about any particular issue or controversy, it’s difficult for them to de-abstract from the macro perspective and understand the real human impact.

    Let me tell you, to the people who are tasked with managing the effects of these policies – it matters a great deal. It even matters to the women recruits, who are not going to be told by anyone that their rate of early discharge as a result of acquiring permanent disabilities even in the mere attempts to train to meet the combat arms standards are an order of magnitude higher than their male comrades. But, really, what does it matter?

    The point of me selecting this particular example is not to bring up the issue, but only to demonstrate the failure of inter-class sympathy – not even much hint of motivation – even in a set of circumstances that would be most likely to inspire it (and over an issue, like many progressive social innovations, that would have been thought absurd and impossible by almost everyone only a few decades ago).

    It’s a kind of Hayekian coordinate-problem market failure – there is no higher level organizer of participants in this prisoner’s dilemma to make everyone understand that they would all be better off if they all picked a common cause. How exactly is inter-class ethnic solidarity supposed to function when people in that ethnic group don’t really care about the same things – not even about each other?

    • asdf says:

      “How exactly is inter-class ethnic solidarity supposed to function when people in that ethnic group don’t really care about the same things – not even about each other?”

      Religion, culture, tradition, etc.

      There is really few earthly reason to give a damn about your fellow man. Certainly many fewer for stangers or members of other classes. The reasons have to come from somewhere higher.

      So people that don’t believe in those things (which includes believing they are useful lies you don’t believe but wish others would be tricked into believing) can’t understand.


      • Handle says:

        Yes, I’m familiar with Eugene Rose’s Nihilism analysis (saw it on Auster’s site years ago – maybe Foseti can review).

        But maybe we’re talking past each other. Probably my fault, so I’ll clarify. I agree with you that it can work practically, that, indeed, it has worked in the past in exactly the way you describe, and that ethnocentric solidarity is with us today among non-white groups.

        But does what exists among, for example, American blacks, also exist amongst American whites? No. Is it easy for me to imagine the prospect of getting there from here? It’s not. I don’t see evidence of it’s feasibility, and what I was pointing out above was what I consider to be evidence of deeply ingrained patterns of thought – so widespread as to be apparent in our favorite writers – that tend to undermine its likelihood.

        Now, of course, that’s a matter of opinion and judgment and reasonable minds can differ when it comes to prediction, but my impression is the white-cold-civil-war has been with us a long, long time and will likely persist. The elite-underclass conspiracy seems to be a medium-term stable and effective political strategy, and there’s nothing comparable on the other side.

      • asdf says:

        “Is it easy for me to imagine the prospect of getting there from here? It’s not.”

        Right is right, odds be damned.

        My circumstances are a bit different because I come from a long line of people fighting against the odds. My ancestors came over because one of them was a leader in the Irish resistance against British rule. After killing a British secret police they had to flee to America. I’m sure many people would have said, “I don’t see the prospect of getting from here (British rule) to there (independence). The odds were against them. They failed many times. But in the end they succeeded.

        When they got here my grandfather was an electrician repairing trains in New York. Back then they had few rights and the chemicals and conditions they forced on workers made many sick. My grandfather formed and became a union leader and got them the basic workers rights we take for granted today. He had to fight strike breakers who wanted to bust his head open. I’m sure many people didn’t see how to get from here (being serfs) to there (being treated like human beings). And sometimes they failed. However, eventually they succeeded.

        My father was born an orphan on a poor farm to an old widow. He was diabetic from birth with plenty of other problems. As a kid the doctors told him he would be dead by 20. I can’t tell you how many times the doctor’s told my mother he’d never work again. He’s 65 and just retired. He even managed to graduate college and raise a middle class family. And that was after knocking up a girl in college and having to support a whole second family. I’m sure as a kid the prospects of getting from here to there were slim. He had his failures, but ultimately he succeded.

        So forgive me if when a comfortable upper middle class kid of priviledge complains that doing the right thing is, “too hard,” or “probably won’t work anyway.” Fuck you, do it. Your a worthless peice of shit otherwise.

      • Foseti says:

        “I’m sure many people would have said, “I don’t see the prospect of getting from here (British rule) to there (independence). The odds were against them. They failed many times. But in the end they succeeded.”

        Did they? It seems to me they traded British Rule for European Rule. Frankly, I’d take London over Brussels any day. Let’s just keep rolling with the Derb quotes ( http://www.johnderbyshire.com/Opinions/RadioDerb/2013-01-19.html#06):

        “The problem with the Irish is that their much-advertised nationalism was mostly of a negative sort. The real burning heart of it was not pride in themselves as a people: it was resentment of the British. It was a yearning an entirely reasonable and understandable one not so much to be independent as just to to escape from domination.

        “See, the desire to escape from the domination of outside force X is perfectly compatible with a willingness to *submit* to domination by different outside force Y. The nationalist impulse of the Irish realized itself as a flight *from* the hated British. When you flee *from* something, though, you are willy nilly fleeing *to* something else. The determination to escape from British control was so powerful, the Irish never paused to ask the question: What are we fleeing *to?*

        “Now we know the answer to that question: The Irish were fleeing *to* control by the bureaucrats of the European Union. From the point of view of national psychology, this is not very surprising. Paradoxically, in view of their intense ethnocentric pride in themselves, the Irish have always had a parallel longing to belong to something big and international. Hence their long devotion to the Roman Catholic church, and more recently to the United Nations. Again, that’s understandable, given Ireland’s history; but it’s just not compatible with being a proud, independent nation.

        “Pulled by those national traits, with assists from lousy government, poor choices, and a national fondness for con-men and gangsters, Ireland has escaped from one kind of bondage into another.

        That’s tragic, yes. The episode of her history that Ireland has now entered is a tragic one. But then, so were all the previous episodes. A most distressful country, indeed.”

      • asdf says:

        My ancestor didn’t fight to join the European Union. It’s unfair to saddle our movement with something that happened decades later and was unrelated. Your just reaching for ways to avoid ever making a sacrifice for a cause.

        My ancestors revolted because the British slaughtered the Irish for kicks. Starved us to death to enrich themselves.

        This is the face of British rule:

        But yeah, if you believed in something you might have to give up a job that affords living in hot zip code X and sending your kids to exclusive school Y. You might have to settle for making an above median wage instead of fighting to be in the top 10%. Yes, that’s totally comparable to people who risked their lives to fight as close to pure evil as we are going to get. Let’s degrade their struggle because you don’t want to feel bad about selling out.

    • Your partial quote of Derb is misleading. He ends up saying that it does matter because a lean, mean, fighting force is necessary to the defense of the country. Also, how exactly is one supposed to analyze a policy of the military, if not by thinking about how it would affect the function of the military? I don’t see much class disconnect in Derb. Also, I would venture to note that you are wrong about Sailer. Its more about his personality than class. He is a bemused, detached observer or at least has trained himself to be, which is very useful considering how much insanity he reports on and analyzes. Do you want Clintonesque ‘I care’ posts? Don’t force the issue. Foseti and Moldbug are good examples for your point but this seems strained.

  19. Anonymous says:

    @ asdf

    So where are you planting your IEDs, bro?

    Seriously though, that’s a cool story. I am glad you are inspired by the tradition of your forefathers, but they fought in a different world, and it’s pretty simplistic to say “fuck you, they did it so can you”.

    Your great grandfather had a whole new continent to flee to, where there was already a (small, but) supportive ethnic community waiting to take him in and help him out. There is no similar place for a white guy to run to today.

    Your union organizer grandfather in NYC, for example, had the tacit ( and probably material) support of people who had real power and saw a way to get more real power by helping union organization. There is no similar faction of people who will help a white guy out today.

    Your father beat a debilitating disease with the help of an all-white medical system staffed throughout by people who were competent, caring, and above all genuinely wanted him to make it. We don’t have a medical system like this today. He went on to achieved a comfortable middle class existence before white males were institutionally discriminated against just about everywhere. This is not the case today.

    I’m not saying this is an excuse, but you have to recognize that the degree of difficulty has gone up exponentially.

  20. asdf says:

    Maybe I’m a pussy compared to them. I know that I walked away from a wall street career when they asked me to lie and rip off a pension fund. When my boss in the government was accepting bribes to help people break the law I risked my career to organize people and try to take him down. I’ve given up money, status, and women because its the right thing to do.

    Perhaps compared to my forfathers that’s all pretty pussy though. At best I gave up fantastic luxury for a still comfortable life, and maybe that’s nothing in comparison. But at least I did something. If Foseti did something its not like he’d be risking his life or living in poverty either. Worst case scenerio he ends up in the 70th percentile instead of the 90th percentile. Boo fucking hoo. People act like taking any action that doesn’t maximize your own personal well being is some bridge to far.

    • spandrell says:

      I appreciate Foseti telling us how USG works in the inside more than being yet another moral crusader. But I guess I’m just a Brahmin too.

      Your position is admirable but you are a single man. Having a family does mess a lot with your T levels.

      • asdf says:

        My ancestors had families too. Sell out is sell out. You appreciate Foseti because the goal of blogging isn’t to change anything, but rather to provide a pleasent intellectual diversion with which to while away your time.

      • Foseti says:

        I’m not sure how to take your comments anymore.

        I don’t understand who you think is “changing something.” Wasn’t your initial point in defense of white nationalism? I certainly don’t claim to be blogging to change the world, but virtually any strategy for fighting progressivism will be more effective than white nationalism. How much evidence of this do you really need? You cite your ancestors, but there’s little evidence they overthrew any progressive force. They – at best – replaced one progressive overlord with another one. Is this really so admirable?

        If I blog for any higher purpose, it’s to help others remember the people that *really* fought progressivism. By definition, they all lost.

      • asdf says:

        The only forces to ever fight progressivism effectively have been culture, religion, tradition, and yes even ethnic nationalism. They have their own sins, but quasi libertarian secular careerism is zero out of infinity in opposing progressivism.

        The most successful anti-progressive modern country today is Japan. Its also by far the strongest mono ethnic state based on ethnic nationalism.

        And its not as if that is based on some bubba redneck desire to lynch the other. If you go to Japan they will be very polite and want to learn from others. My host family was very nice to me when I lived there. However, they understand that, “Japan is for Japanese people, and [other place] is for other people.” This is non-controversial. If you told someone that multi-cultural empires made sense under such and such rules they would think you were an arrogant prick inviting disaster down the road. Japan is for Japanese. Very simple.

        So yes, I do think ethnic nationlism and pride is an important part of fighting progressivism. Everything else has had zero success.

      • Foseti says:

        Your definition of “effective” is perhaps a bit different than mine. Those forces may have fought progressivism for a while, but they all eventually lost. The evidence, is also somewhat inconclusive – the Japanese while nationalistic, are not religious and are a conquered people.

        At a certain point, wanting to fight a force that you can’t beat is no longer courageous and is just plain stupid.

        As best I can tell (although, you interestingly keep refusing to say plainly), you believe we need to return to a highly religious, white nationalistic society (perhaps like the South in say the 1850s – how’d that work out?). You also seem pissed that I don’t commit career suicide by jumping on this bandwagon (as if doing so would matter at all). Is it really that hard to see why: 1) there’s no way this will happen; and 2) even if it did, it wouldn’t work?

      • asdf says:


        Sometimes you can’t win over a single lifetime. If a cause is just you have to fight for it even if you’ll lose. Losing nobly is better for the soul then winning ignobly. Winning ignobly always ends up being losing in the long run anyway.

        These are the only forces that offer a counter narrative of a functioning society to progressivism. We’ve lived them. That was the country my Dad grew up in. Its what everyone talks about when they talk about the 1950s golden age.

        You offer no vision of what a non progressive society would look like. There is no historical example of quasi libertarian multi cultural secularism functioning for any large nation over a long period of time.

      • Foseti says:

        I agree with most of what you say again. However . . .

        The forces you mention have been steadily (slowly but inexorably) losing to progressivism for centuries. I think it’s long past the point where its reasonable to believe that keeping up this losing battle is fighting-the-good-fight. I’d actually argue that this opposition is necessary for progressivism to survive. It’s basically part of progressivism by now. What better enemy than one that doesn’t ever know when it’s beat?

      • asdf says:

        “I think it’s long past the point where its reasonable to believe that keeping up this losing battle is fighting-the-good-fight.”

        If we measure things by immediate wordly results very few things worth fighting for are going to pass the good fight test. You fight because its right to fight. Because its the only thing that preserves the soul. Maybe one day you finally win, maybe you don’t, but its the fighting itself that has the value.

        I can think of no opposition to progressivism that can come from worldly focus. It will always be in the best interest of anyone in this world to join progressivism rather then oppose it.

        We may just have to disagree here. I believe in the soul and the afterlife as primary, you believe in the world and its sense experience are all there is and then the void.

        I caution not to believe that Moldbug holds some wordly answer to progressivism. We have had neo-cameralism before, its not necessarily the society you are hoping for, its not even the society that used to be.

        Of diversity all I can say is this. Mono-ethnic cultures can always reverse the tide of progressivism one day even if it takes 1000 years. Out diverse society will lose that ability within a single generation. Once we are multi-cultural the war is over for good.

        “I’d actually argue that this opposition is necessary for progressivism to survive.”

        I doubt this statement. After all aren’t current times proof enough of that. Even Orwell understood you just invent and enemy if none exists.

  21. The desired end point of reactionaries is that their urban enclaves will be policed with the authoritarian efficiency of the race realist NYC.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: