On Robert Heinlein’s sympathy for fascism

“Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.”

Robert A. Heinlein – Starship Troopers (1959)

Somebody recently had a go at me for expressing my admiration for the writings of Robert A. Heinlein (who I consider to be one of the most rational and hilarious sci-fi writers of the 20th century) because he “sympathised with fascism”. 

Honestly, if you can’t sympathise with fascism at all you probably don’t know what it is, or you’ve been indoctrinated into conflating the term with moralistic notions. All of history has been human tyranny. Some tyranny works, some doesn’t. Some is murderous to outsiders, some is subversive to its own people. Even liberty has proven to be destructive and unsustainable in some ways. There are plenty of good things to say about fascism, and you throw out the baby with the bathwater at your peril. I mean, sanctimonious moral posturing aside, how well is the West doing under universal suffrage? Looked like it could have been good, but it’s in tremendous decay now. Can we regain our liberties as a people in the long-run without significant sacrifices in the shorter-term? Will pleading and begging and trying to convince the polity through strong arguments actually bring the libertarian cause to victory?

“The instinct to survive is human nature itself, and every aspect of our personalities derives from it. Anything that conflicts with the survival instinct acts sooner or later to eliminate the individual and thereby fails to show up in future generations. . . . A scientifically verifiable theory of morals must be rooted in the individual’s instinct to survive–and nowhere else!–and must correctly describe the hierarchy of survival, note the motivations at each level, and resolve all conflicts.
We have such a theory now; we can solve any moral problem, on any level. Self-interest, love of family, duty to country, responsibility toward the human race . . . .
The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self-interest has to individual.” 

Robert A. Heinlein – Starship Troopers (1959)

We will return to aristocracy, and hierarchical top-down rule by sovereigns. Nothing lasts forever, but that will be the model for the 21st century, and when we get there, we’ll probably all find that it’s better for the nation(s) than the slow decay of democracy. I’m not saying it’s perfect or absolutely stable. But compared to what? Give me a Christian monarch over the tyranny of the (increasingly parasitic) majority, any day.

People who say “fascism is evil” (and similar moronic conflations) are usually just trying to cover for their own ignorance, cowardice, or the evil they hide in their own closets. 

Robert Heinlein was a great writer BECAUSE he was rational enough to sympathise with fascism.

I’ll leave you today with an excerpt from the screenplay by Edward Neumeier for the 1997 film of Starship Troopers. It’s another good example of the rational separation of moralism (rhetoric/emotional arguments from authority) from empiricism (what actually happens, how things actually work, despite our feelings about them and our wishes).

6 INT NEW UNI HIGH - CLASSROOM - DAY - CARMEN IBANEZ

 is beautiful, just 18, and quite pleased with herself  because
 Johnny Rico is clearly infatuated with her.

 RASCZAK (O.S.)
 The end of another school year, and for 
 me no doubt another failure...
 Rico, pay attention !

 The teacher JEAN RASCZAK, 38, a rugged veteran who proudly displays his missing hand, scowls at Johnny, bemused.

 JOHNNY
 Sorry, Mr. Rasczak.

 But as soon as Rasczak turns back to the class, Johnny begins to sketch a cartoon on his desk's touch screen.

 RASCZAK
 Here in History and Moral Philosophy
 we've explored the decline of 
 Democracy when social scientists brought
 the world to the brink of chaos, and how the 
 veterans took control and imposed a stability 
 that has lasted for generations since...
 You know these facts but have I taught you
 anything of value ? You.
 Why are only citizens allowed to vote ?

 Rasczak points at LANNY, 17, with his stump.

 LANNY
 It's a reward... what the Federation gives you
 for doing Federal Service.

 Rasczak is crestfallen, makes a big show of patience.

 RASCZAK
 No. Something given has no value!
 Haven't I taught you dimwits anything?
 I guess they ought to revoke my 
 teaching credential...

 Laughter. Johnny's cartoon, meanwhile, is taking shape: Johnny and Carmen flying round planet Venus in a space ship.

 RASCZAK
 When you vote, you're exercising political
 authority. You're using force. And force, my
 friends, is violence, the supreme authority
 from which all other authority derives.

 CARL JENKINS, 18, a superintelligent geek, jumps in.

 CARL
 Gee, we always thought you were the
 supreme authority, Mr. Rasczak.

 Laughter. Rasczak grins.

 RASCZAK
 In my classroom, you bet. Whether it's 
 exerted by ten or ten billion, political 
 authority is violence by degree. The 
 people we call citizens have earned
 the right to wield it.

 DIZZY FLORES, 18, athletic, pretty, no nonsense, chimes in.

 DIZZY
 My mother always says that violence
 never solves anything.

 RASCZAK
 Really ? I wonder what the city fathers of
 Hiroshima would have to say about that.
 You.

 Rasczak points at Carmen.

 CARMEN
 They probably wouldn't say anything.
 Hiroshima was destroyed.

Johnny presses "SEND" on his desk, and the cartoon appears across the way on Carmen's screen.

 RASCZAK
 Correct. Naked force has settled more
 issues in history than any other factor.
 The contrary opinion 'violence never
 solves anything' is wishful thinking
 at its worst.

While Rasczak looks away, Carmen throws Johnny her wonderful smile, and Johnny's gone, checked out, flying round Venus.

 RASCZAK
 People who forget that always pay...
 They pay with their lives and their
 freedom.

 Dizzy notices the dreamy look on Johnny's face.
 So does Rasczak. He points at him with his stump,
 snaps Johnny to.

 RASCZAK
 You. Tell me the moral difference,
 if any, between the citizen and the civilian ?

 JOHNNY
 The difference lies in the field of civic
 virtue. A citizen accepts personal
 responsibility for the safety of the body politic,
 of which he is a member, defending it,
 if need be, with his life.
 The civilian does not.

 RASCZAK
 The exact words of the text. But do
 you understand it ?
 Do you believe it ?

 JOHNNY
 Uh, I don't know.

 RASCZAK
 Of course you don't. I doubt if any 
 of you here would recognize 'civic virtue'
 if it bit you in the ass.

 A bell rings. Rasczak shrugs, indifferent.

 RASCZAK
 Well, that's it. Have a nice life.

I am a racist. Here’s why…

Video version of the below article, for the hard of reading.

Many of us have experienced being slapped with an ad hominem label (parading as criticism) such as “racist”, “anti-semite”, or “bigot”, simply for speaking factually about the trends of human behaviour.

The latter term is undoubtedly subjective to its core, and well-worth ignoring. The middle term “anti-semite” is a very strange emergence in our language, given that “Semites” refers to the peoples who speak the Semitic languages – those in the line of Shem, Noah’s son. Etymologically, it is not a term specifically relating to Jews, given that the Jews didn’t emerge as a distinct people until 13 generations after Shem, with Judah, brother of Joseph (of amazing technicolor dream-coat fame).

I feel that the first and most commonly shrieked term of derangement, “racist”, requires some unemotional elucidation in light of what is happening in the political sphere in the West right now.

“Racism” has unfortunately lost its coherent meaning through overuse. Just as when you repeat any word over and over, devoid of context or coherent relevance, it becomes an empty sound – more akin to the cry of an animal than human speech – “racism” means so many different things to different people, and has become so overburdened with conflicting meaning and moral connotation that it has essentially conflated with “hatred” or “evil”.

“Racism” is bad because racism is “evil”. 🤔

When a word ONLY derives its meaning from a moral position (i.e. an agenda to justify a desired outcome as “truth”) then it becomes a religious term, instead of an empirical one. It is a non-falsifiable truth non-apt statement. As Jordan B Peterson might put it: “it depends on what you mean by racist“.

To function across time, words must have objective and fixed meanings, hence the existence of dictionaries to collect them, and the result is civilisation. Certainly new words are formed all the time, and meanings or phonics change across the annals of history (our own language English is an unlikely bastard love-child of Latin, Greek, and German), and this evolution of applied language can’t be entirely stopped. But when language becomes too malleable, the very logos of our culture becomes putty in the hands of the tribe with the greatest will to lie. We need only look at the quality of literature, film scripts, popular music lyrics, and the modern methods of communication amongst the masses (Twitter and Snapchat spring to mind) to see that a dumbing down has occurred. Long-standing and powerfully unique words are being aborted from the English lexicon faster than unborn babies at the hands of Planned Parenthood “doctors”. Many words are being co-opted. Gay is a beautiful word, describing a light and frivolous joy that most people only experience when they are truly happy, or in the throes of hormonal overload due to the kindling of new love. Now, you’re only “gay” if you rub your genitals against someone who has the same genitals as you. That’s a shame. I liked that word.

Racialism is a term that used to be used in decades gone by, and the additional syllable compared to its modern equivalent “racism” suggests a possibly greater and more specific, objective meaning than mere “wrong think”, “hatred” and “bigotry”, as have become the entire content of the modern definition of racism (if you could call it that).

Some wonderful people have digitised the entire Webster’s dictionary of the year 1828 on the internet, and a quick search yields no result for the words “racism” “racist” or “racialism”. Curious. The word race is defined as follows:

RACEnoun [Latin radix and radius having the same original. This word coincides in origin with rod, ray, radiate, etc.]
1. The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely. Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, etc.
Hence the long race of Alban fathers come.
2. A generation; a family of descendants. A race of youthful and unhandled colts.
3. A particular breed; as a race of mules; a race of horses; a race of sheep.
Of such a race no matter who is king.

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/race

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word racialism first came into use in 1882 as a new term for tribalism. The word tribalism does not appear in the 1828 Webster’s at all, but is defined at Etymonline as “group loyalty”. The point should be clear; despite the concept existing for literally the entirety of humanity’s tenure on Earth, the specific words that are commonplace today have only existed for less than 200 years in the English lexicon, and have only had a negative moral connotation for less than 100 years.

According to Etymonline:

racist (n.)
1932 (as an adjective from 1938), from race (n.2) + -istRacism is in continual use from 1936 (from French racisme, 1935), originally in the context of Nazi theories. 

https://www.etymonline.com/word/racist

Prior to the 1800s nobody batted an eyelid about racial in-group preferences and out-group suspicions, and prior to the 1930s, nobody would have thought you evil or unusually bigoted for holding such views.

Indeed, racialism is not at all the same as hatred, bigotry, or evil, and all claims or insinuations along such lines should be ridiculed or ignored. One can be “racist” or a “racialist” without in any manner being full of hatred, jealousy, murderousness, or any other emotional state whatsoever. The thieves of our language (the postmodern academy) know this is the case, which is why they are working so hard to perpetuate the ridiculous lie that race is merely a social construct – biologically skin-deep only – and ought to be imagined away at any cost (unless it’s towards white people, in which case, collectivise and judge away!).

Race is real. It is absolutely clear to anyone paying attention, at virtually any resolution of study; historical, genetic, aesthetic, cultural, behavioural, cognitive, physiological, even cranio-skeletal! There are more observable differences between Mongoloid and Caucasoid (now considered archaic terms) H. sapiens than between the jackal and the canine, which are undoubtedly classed as unique subspecies, even though they can produce offspring together (as can any humans of course). Now don’t get me wrong; we’re all human beings and there’s no doubt about that, but it is irrational to claim that we’re all the same, when it’s simply not true.

The racial categories (broad-stroke as they may be) have been ~50,000 years in the making; each race has adapted to vastly different environmental, climate, and cultural pressures in nearly complete isolation. The difference between sub-Saharan Africa and Scandinavia might as well be Venus and Mars, and it’s no wonder that over time these regions produce such different peoples that they appear to each other at first encounter almost as different as interplanetary aliens might (if they ever show up!). The world is a beautifully diverse place, and it’s my firm belief that this was God’s plan and intent. One world, many peoples.

Despite these statements (which in a non-hysterical world should be uncontroversial), in 1950 the newly formed United Nations issued a statement attempting to debunk the concept of race for the first time.

The establishment of the United Nations (UN) following World War II led to a surge in declarations, conventions, and organizations aimed at promoting human rights and equality. The legacy of Nazism and the failure of the League of Nations galvanized the UN to formulate two critical postwar documents: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the Genocide Convention (1948). The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) was established in 1945 to “embody a genuine culture of peace.” It was within this international atmosphere that UNESCO, as one of its early public acts, issued a Statement on Race in 1950.
Racism was the essence of Nazism, and the defeat of that regime provided an opportunity to pursue an egalitarian agenda. Despite the defeat of Nazism, racism in the late 1940s remained a powerful ideology. Segregation in the United States was in full force, and southern racism was yet to be challenged politically. UNESCO took up the challenge and established a committee of experts that published the 1950 Statement on Race, which declared that there was no scientific basis or justification for racial bias (The New YorkTimes, July 18, 1950). The publication created a controversy that, in various forms, has lasted ever since. Nevertheless, the publication of the statement marked the emergence of a new scientific orthodoxy that continues into the twentyfirst century. This persistence is most remarkable given the ongoing changes in the study of the life sciences. But perhaps as noteworthy is how the specific makeup of the committee fanned the controversy, for while the subject matter reputedly dealt with issues of physical anthropology and biology, the scientists on the UNESCO committee were largely social scientists. The question of whether race is a biological phenomena or a social construct was, and remains, controversial.

The 1950 UNESCO statement was revolutionary. Although during the previous two decades significant shifts had taken place in scientific perspectives concerning the biology of race, the claim of biological equality advanced in the statement was unprecedented as a declaration by an official public body. The committee asserted human equality based on four premises: (1) the mental capacities of all races are similar, (2) no evidence exists for biological deterioration as a result of hybridization, (3) there is no correlation between national or religious groups and any particular race, and (4) “race was less a biological fact than a social myth,” and that biology proved the “universal brotherhood of man.” The first three, viewed from the perspective of half a century later, have become part of the mainstream, or at least part of liberal orthodoxy. But the fourth claim presented an epistemologically radical position. The “brotherhood of man” had a subversive ring to it at the beginning of the cold war, and the positive assertion about equality based on science remains controversial today. In 1950, many viewed this claim to be the weaker point of the statement, and it was subject to widespread criticism.

https://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/unesco-statements-race

The full statement from UNESCO can be read here.

All that said, race is changing, to be sure. The last century has possibly seen the most interracial marriages and families born than any other time in human history, and if the trend were to continue, we would see the development of new racial subgroups (segments of a population with significant common genes due to closeness of kinship) who may give themselves new names. This is how countless related but distinctly different subsets of the five major races have emerged over time. But just because there is difference between the Han Chinese and Miao Chinese ethnic groups, does not mean that we must ignore the far greater genetic divide between Chinese people as a whole (including the internal ethnic minorities) and sub-Saharan Africans. There’s a great deal of difference between ethnic Greeks and Anglo-Saxons, but those two tribes of Europe have more in common genetically and historically than either group has with Australian Aborigines. I won’t bore you with more examples of the principle. At least on the internet, this categorisation and nomenclature is already beginning with various nicknames for half-Asian half-white people, et cetera.

The following can be stated with confidence from the wealth of historical, genetic, and statistical information that we have:

  1. The major racial groups either:
    • were created differently than each other by God (potentially the most dangerous possibility to exist in the zeitgeist as far as peaceful relations between races go), or;
    • emerged from more primitive hominid forms at different times on their own unique evolutionary trajectory, or;
    • emerged from a common ancestral gene pool and separated across geography and over a vast period of time they mutated genetically and/or adapted behaviourally to their respective, and quite varied, climates and social/survival conditions, and became the groups that they essentially have been for most of recorded history. This latter possibility seems to be the most commonly held belief in the modern Darwinist zeitgeist.
  2. The racial groups are physically different in many ways, and have developed unique cultures in their respective geographical regions.
  3. For most of history, most racial groups have either lived in isolation, or in conflict. Multicultural/cosmopolitan regions have been hotbeds of conflict and, ultimately, war or collapse, sometimes only lasting decades peacefully before returning to a vastly dominant racial group rule. In the scheme of history, decades are really not much time at all. Barely a blip on the radar of the epoch of man.
  4. Today, even in our multicultural societies, the racial groups have significantly different average IQs (a well-documented claim antithetical enough to the social justice narrative that it led to the “unpersoning” of Nobel Laureate James Watson in 2000), differences in criminal proclivity which do NOT correlate with demographic bloc size, and in some ways they have distinctly different cultural norms and affectations. Compare say a New York Jew with a Compton African American; these are not two people of the same culture or race. Yet, under law they are both Americans and (theoretically) subject to the same rights and responsibilities.

Despite the law being colour-blind, the people themselves still cluster together with others like themselves. In 2013 (perhaps before the social justice race-denialism trend reached fever-pitch) the Huffington Post ran an article showing a pointillist map of American cities with colours representing the five major racial groups, based on the 2010 census data collated in a study by Dustin Cable at the University of Virginia. The article itself acknowledges the pattern of racial segregation found in every major city, and at that time, described the patterns as “beautiful”. Aesthetic and moral judgements aside, the trend is clear: birds of a feather flock together, as my Grandfather used to say. It’s not a prescription, simply an empirical observation.

Chicago
Detroit (8 Mile Road)
New York
Washington DC

Personally, I love the idea of a multicultural utopia, for mere convenience. It’s expensive and time-consuming to be exposed to many different cultures if they live in isolation from one another. Lot of frequent flyer mileage! Lots of languages to learn. Travellers understand what it takes to really get to know a culture; to visit its homeland and live amongst its people. For most folks, myself included, we’re too busy or broke to live the gypsy life, and so it’s convenient and fun to be exposed to numerous other cultures on a simple visit to the marketplace (or in your day-to-day life within it). Unfortunately, my whims and fancies have absolutely no significant effect on the course of history for man, or the stability of various civilisational models. Very few men (and women) in history have had the agency and destiny to truly change the course of mankind.

But what happens when a non-native culture begins to grow from a tiny minority found mostly in the commercial marketplace (e.g. that one local Indian restaurant and the family who runs it), to a really significant chunk of the population? Well, what tends to happen is the formation of enclaves, both in the suburbs and the marketplace. It’s only natural, people tend to want to be among their own kind; people who share their skin colour and language. Yes, I can hear some of you now calling bullshit because your community is more multicultural than mine, and you are so high and mighty that you don’t view the world that way. To you I say: exceptions don’t destroy rules. If you live in Newtown, or West End, or any central city suburb/metropolis in the capitals, of course your area is not a “racial” enclave (yet). Why? Because it’s the marketplace! You live inside a commercial district. The suburbs however, the place where people raise families and want to live in peace and be AWAY from the market, are predominantly populated by a single racial group, with a few minorities perhaps (and sure, some exceptions you could point to right now). Every Australian city has its racial areas. We know the white suburbs and the Maori suburbs and the Muslim (Arab) suburbs and the Jewish suburbs and the Sudanese, Vietnamese, Chinese and even the Greek, Italian, and South American suburbs in some cases. You also know which suburbs in your city are unwise to visit at night because of your skin colour.

Why does this happen? It’s simply about family. You love your children more than anyone else partly because they are the closest things to replicas of you that you will ever experience (if cloning goes full commercial, this article won’t age well). Even better, they are made of your genes, and your partner’s genes (and presumably if you’re having a baby, you and your partner love each other very much, are married, and have consciously chosen to permanently unite your genetic lines in these children and their future offspring). We instinctively know as well that when we meet another person of similar heritage to ourselves (for instance when I meet a person from Ireland, or from Irish stock) we immediately feel a sense of kinship because we know that we have common ancestors and our people have moved through history together. For many it’s not conscious at all; mere impulse. Others are fully cognisant of it and express it joyfully. While some people experience this in a disgust (or genuine hatred) reaction to those vastly different in heritage to themselves, this is not necessarily so merely because of the positive feelings that we experience when meeting others from our own ancestral tribe(s). Preference for your own people is not tantamount to racial supremacy. That is another conflation of unique concepts.

There is something very powerful and worthy of consideration about a population of people who share so much genetic capital that they are, for all intents and purposes, extended family to one another. When that sense of racial kinship extends into building societies and making scientific, agricultural, economic, and medical innovations that strengthen the tribe and the nations formed around it, we call it “civilisation”. When unenrolled outsiders want to be beneficiaries of the wealth of such a civilisation, eventually, they may label the progenitors with morally-laden terms of slander like “privileged” and ascribe a negative moral value to any advantages enjoyed by the descendants of these architects of civilisation.

We live in a global world now. Information is no longer dependent on physical carriage. We zap ideas and memes across the planet instantaneously. Is the internet the harbinger of the end of the diversity of the world? I think the answer should be obvious if we honestly observe the increase in tribal division and subcultures that we experience daily on the internet. People want to be part of exclusive tribes. In the case of the current zeitgeist, many so-called progressives seem to want to be part of a multi-ethnic tribe which reduces all aspects of what it considers “white culture”, or completely excludes whites (yes, even in their own ancestral homelands like Great Britain).

Though in the informational sphere these new progressive tribes are seldom oriented around ethnicity (why should memes be subservient to genes?), in the physical world, birds of a feather still flock together. It’s only rational.

Will we all eventually melt down to a mono-cultural, mono-ethnic, hegemonic global nation? Every racial group has moved beyond its ancestral home (as they always have if you examine a large enough time slice) and there is a small but growing segment of the population who come from either a bi-racial union, or from a multinational heritage across a few generations. I myself am largely Irish and English in my DNA, but with some more ancient Viking blood, and 3% South Asian (Indian) DNA, which stems from my paternal grandfather’s mother who had one Indian grandparent. As also seems to be the “racist” way of human behaviour across time, all of my subsequent ancestors in the line stemming from my great, great, great grandparent who was Indian married back into the dominant racial group of the time and region (for India was well and truly under British economic and administrative rule at this time) and the Indian genes have subsequently diminished with each generation. The truth is that people behave rationally when it comes to the continuation of their genes, even if their espoused moral convictions contradict their actions. There is a rational reason why many white westerners are converting to Islam, outside of any spiritual revelations or experiences that draw them there. People put themselves in the highest status tribe they can afford with their social credit or genetic free passes, and they do this because strong groups are safe groups. Every group has its strengths and weaknesses and we are all struggling to survive and must collectivise in order to do this.

While progressive liberals tend to scream epithets at you for acknowledging the existence of race as a white person, whilst simultaneously decrying your whiteness, Libertarians also tend to be very squeamish around this topic, perhaps because they feel that such acknowledgement of the macro-societal reality somehow removes agency from individuals and promotes judgement of individuals based entirely on collective truths that simply may not apply to the given individual. Certainly, some people do that; they are morons.

I have an ethnically Jewish father-in-law, a Chinese step-mother (technically speaking, since she is more like a sister in terms of age and we are great friends), and over the years I have had many friendships, some of them deep and long-lasting with people from South America, New Zealand (Maoris), China, Japan, Vietnam, Zimbabwe, West Ghana, and just about every European nation you can think of. I view every person I meet as an individual, and I approach them with curiosity, an awareness of my biases and racial prejudices, and then as I get to know them I construct a map of that person which is distinct from the map I have of their racial group, but usually has a lot in common with it. It is very rare to meet a person who doesn’t live up to their own racial stereotypes to some degree; I myself am no exception. That is precisely why stereotypes exist; they are useful shortcuts to understanding differences en masse.

The Cultural Marxists desperately want us to believe that race doesn’t exist and that any acknowledgement of it (except those venomously directed at white people) is an expression of hatred, self-supremacy, and a desire to conquer and oppress all other peoples. To do this, they have to make race go away, and muddle our children and young people with the despicable notion that just because there’s empirical evidence that race (not to mention binary gender) exists, it’s all an illusion derived from some evil that pretty much only white people embody, and that (specifically) Jews are the biggest victims of in history, particularly in 20th century Europe.

I would say this to anyone who cares to understand it: You can observe and quantify the migratory, cultural, and warfare behaviours of a racial group and make some pretty informed assumptions about how that demographic chunk is going to vote, breed, and socialise with other groups. To pretend that this division doesn’t actually exist, and isn’t happening right before our eyes, is akin to the sycophantic fools of the court who vehemently proclaim their admiration of the Emperor’s new cloak, which simply isn’t there. Collective wilful blindness appears to be the hallmark of the speciating Social Justice Warrior – a tribe which, thankfully, appears to also be hell-bent on its own gene death through Climate Change Derangement and copious abortions (though I mourn the latter, since it comes at the expense of the innocent). This last point makes it seem that the media and academia manipulators of this lost generation of blue-haired facially-pierced “Nazi”-punchers are hoping they can simply use them as canon fodder in the escalating unrest we witness in Western nations, and that they won’t last more than a generation or two. Useful idiots who cull themselves from the gene pool.

Importantly, if you allow your well-informed and factually correct racial generalisations to cloud your judgement such that you cannot recognise the uniqueness of the individual in front of you and generate a matrix of identifiable correlations and aberrations between the person and their group(s), then you may be a moron. It’s really not that hard to do, and in my experience, most Australians (of all races) get it. Just not the ones fed through the Cultural Marxist mincer of government-subsidised Bachelor of Arts degrees.

Questions of the State and governance of the masses are collective questions, and so individual cases are almost completely irrelevant to them. While individuals who don’t fit the patterns of collective behaviour will always exist and often suffer the injustice of collective law-making, it is a far greater injustice to ignore the empirical patterns of the masses and allow for an individualistic approach in making laws. Laws are by definition for collectives, and so we must rationally sort and study the ways in which people collectivise, and govern accordingly. If we must have rulers at all, we must accept that they rule in broad strokes, and that micro-management at the individual or family level will only come at the cost of effective rule. This is what we are seeing occur in the West now; liberalism is failing, because it is denying the bigger picture. It is a tragedy, but there seems to be no getting around it. Christianity has done it best over the centuries, but now we are removing the Christian foundation of the modern West, and we are already paying the price. Democracy is a jumbled mess, the tyranny of the majority, which is especially rife with problems when ill-considered open-borders immigration policies are forcing us to abandon state-based collectives and reorganise ourselves along ideological, religious, and racial lines. That is perhaps the salient point on Government; rulers don’t get to choose how people collectivise, only how to rule the collectives in their dominion. If governments don’t adapt to the reshuffling of human collectives, they are fairly quickly overthrown by the collective with the greatest will to power. This is the way of the world. Not how I would choose it, but again, it’s not up to any of us. The myth of progress beyond race and religion has been perhaps the most divisive program of lies ever constructed. We are, as a species, what we are.

So am I a “racist”?

I suppose so, if you de-conflate the concept with some kind of moral or emotional meaning. I have no feelings specifically about other races. It is irrational to hate an amorphous collective. I don’t even really hate any individuals either, it’s simply not in my nature. If people make themselves my enemy in some way, I simply establish a boundary between myself and them. Every day I am surrounded by and interacting with people from all walks of life whom I love, to some degree or other. I am indifferent about strangers because I know almost nothing about them (by definition). I certainly make some assumptions about people when I do meet them, based on things like skin colour, hair colour, age, gender, clothing, handshake firmness, eye contact. You can form a pretty detailed map of someone from that first impression, but if you’re not in awe of your own towering intellect, you also assume correctly that most of that map is slightly, if not completely, wrong. Remaining curious about another individual is the best way to develop a lasting friendship, if they too are curious about you.

I’m certain that reasonable political leftists and even some of those whom I might characterise as Social Justice Warriors would probably see the sense in what I’m saying, but no doubt the most hysterical among both the extreme Left and Right will take some umbrage with these statements. Lunatic leftists will say I am ignoring my white privilege (I’m not, I’m just simply not apologising for it. I’m grateful for my white privilege, and owe nobody except my ancestors and God anything for it). Rabid racialist right-wingers will say I’m ignoring the detrimental long-term social effects of miscegenation, and I’m not (nor am I accepting that premise here), it’s simply a topic for another conversation. As always, I invite any reasonable refutation or correction, but I suspect that those who have taken the most offence will resort to the kind of pedestrian conflation of morality and reality that I described at the start.

As has been the most powerful realisation in my personal path of learning, the most important to thing is to understand your enemy’s motivations. When they are shrieking at you that you are evil, wrong, racist, whatever… have a modicum of compassion for them. They have been lied to, indoctrinated, and in many cases abused or neglected by their parents. They weren’t educated properly, they lack all manners that we associate with Christian European liberalism, and they aren’t curious about you. They have a map in their head of you that looks exactly like a Nazi brown-shirt, and very little you say, if anything, will grant them the clarity of thought to see what is truly before them and, with curiosity, begin a relationship of discovery. So, you cannot take their insults and lies personally. They know not what they do. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished for their lies (how else will they learn?), but they are not coming at you for a Socratic dialogue, or a syllogistic debate, so don’t engage with them in one. At the first sign of moralisms, shaming, straw-manning, or other forms of dishonest argumentation, simply bail. You don’t owe them your time if they are speaking an incompatible language. They are rhetoricians, and while rhetoric is very useful and effective in mobilising political action groups, it is all about conflation, emotion, morality, and has little to do with reality. Rhetoric is a tool with a specific agenda (a desired outcome); dialectic is a process of peeling back the layers of error and falsehood which conceal something approaching Truth.

The main thing I want you to take away from this article is this:

The charge of “racism” only has power over you if you deny it or apologise for it. Simply own it, and be willing to explain when asked in genuine curiosity that it is a simple matter of fact, and has nothing to do with your emotions or your treatment of the individuals you meet. This cognitive dissonance of holding multiple resolutions of examination (your conflicting but related maps) in your mind at one time, is impossible for the ideologically-possessed to grasp, but is very useful for yourself and other genuine thinkers.

Hopefully that clears the air about this “racism” nonsense, and perhaps if enough people grasp this, we can get on with having truthful conversations about this human project called “Western Civilisation” and what might be done to save it, improve it, or replace it with something(s) better. I won’t hold my breath.

Neil Erikson responds to my criticism on The Uncuckables.

Following my blog post criticising Neil Erikson’s action at the gay church recently, he asked for the opportunity to air his grievances with my article on The Uncuckables, and we had a very spirited conversation to try and sort it out last night. Not the last conversation, I’m sure. I think it went well, and we certainly both got our viewpoints across. Hopefully folks can draw some value from it one way or the other.

Go home Neil Erikson, you’re drunk, mate.

Two days ago, Neil Erikson (renowned Australian right-wing activist, publicity stunt actor, and general gadfly to police, commies, and mainstream media) attended the West Hawthorn Uniting Church, which waves a rainbow flag at its door (at least it did on this night) and preaches that the Christian God approves of gay marriage, and that because the triune Godhead can be expressed as masculine (Father), feminine (Holy Spirit), and child (Son), then therefore God is essentially trans, and maybe even female sometimes, and that God made us in his image, which is… you guessed it: trans. 😂

Neil attended with Dia Beltran, who is a fellow YouTube content creator and a personal friend of mine. Dia is a practising Christian. Neil is (evidently) not a practising Christian, though I don’t doubt he values orthodox Christian values in others. You can watch what happened in his video (if it doesn’t get removed):

I started to do a live stream today that was going to be a commentary on this incident, but due to tech errors I had to abort after a short time. It gave me a little time to think more about what I wanted to say and to have a long phone conversation with Dia about her involvement. I won’t recommence the live stream on this subject. This will be my only writing on the matter, hopefully.

It was exactly as I suspected; Dia thought they were going to film the (most definitely heretical) sermon and critique it afterwards, or get involved in some mutually consensual discussion. She didn’t think Neil was going to jump up and start using foul defamatory language and imprecise slogans to interrupt a privately hosted community group.

While I totally agree that the Uniting Church has abandoned the orthodoxy in favour of social justice, and the sermon itself being preached was ridiculous, and I agree that these views should be exposed, and thoroughly debated and debunked, the manner in which Neil approached it was ill-prepared, completely devoid of syllogistic or theological argument, and given all that he could muster as a verbal argument in that moment was “youse aren’t Christians”, he had to resort to raising his voice, using provocative slurs, and then refusing to leave when asked.

Dia reported to me that she was subsequently fired from her job, because activists (presumably from the political left) targeted her workplace with demands for her dismissal over this incident. I empathise with the employer. When the mob is baying for blood, you have a bottom line to consider. Not every businessperson is ready to be crucified. While the employer made their self-interested choice, and the mob won, it was ultimately Dia who lost here, at the knowing expense of Neil Erikson. Do we really expect he didn’t think this behaviour and his cheerful introduction of Dia at the start of the stream wouldn’t drag her into the inevitable backlash? If he didn’t realise, he should have. Either way, Erikson demonstrates once again that he is capable of just about anything if a camera is rolling.

Even the most vehement defender of free speech can see in this video that what Neil did was more akin to a home invasion than a public debate. No, Neil doesn’t have a right to show up at people’s private residences of places of business, or rented community spaces (in a Church or anywhere else) and pretend to be a curious and well-meaning listener, only to (6 minutes into the sermon) stand up, hijack the event, and start calling the attendants despicable names because he didn’t take the time to study up and offer a cogent theological argument. But that’s not what Neil appears to be about. He’s all about the spectacle. Whatever gets the outrage Likes and Shares, perhaps.

It wasn’t too far into the past that I heard from a distressed mutual friend that my dear friend and brother in Christ, Dave Pellowe, had been set upon at his private family home in the middle of the night by Neil and some of his mates for the purpose of starting up such a “debate” as the one we see in this stream (though it was about a business matter in this instance, I believe). Understandably, the Pellowes felt quite violated. I was later bewildered to see that Neil had filmed and posted the home invasion online! I remember my first thought being (and bear in mind that this was the first time I’d ever heard of Neil Erikson) that this guy must WANT to get arrested.

In this live stream from the church incident, which at time of writing is still being publicly displayed on Neil’s Senator Slayer YouTube channel, it is clear that Neil believes he has a right to be there. That being asked to leave doesn’t apply to him. Because… free speech? He also seems to believe he is the genuine victim of assault, when (as he claims, though it is not shown in the video) he is punched or shoved by one of the church attendees. Perhaps Neil doesn’t realise that if you refuse to leave a private space when asked, you are already committing a crime and using your body and voice as a disruption to a space into which you were not invited. Neil’s lucky they were Christians. He likely wouldn’t do that inside a Mosque, I suspect (not without a large gang of men and camera crew with him).

Some of what Neil has done in the past has been of value. And we will always need those slightly crazy (i.e. high in trait disagreeableness, low in politeness, and highly open to experience) men and women at the edge of the Overton window pushing outward, and trolling the masters, so the rest of us can enjoy greater freedom from tyranny. But this church-invasion debacle is simply not the Australian way. Moral arguments aside, disgust with the corruption of Christian doctrine aside, and the immeasurable detriment the social justice movement has been to our society aside, this stunt succeeded at neither the thorough exposure of heretical doctrine being preached, nor at stirring any significant outrage at the foolishly misguided souls in that church. The only real outrage was caused by Neil.

He frightened these people. They probably didn’t know him, or what he does. He looked poised for violence. He was belligerent, calling them “cucks” when they turned their backs in a manner obviously intended as threats. They were probably afraid he was demon possessed. And for what? To embarrass them on YouTube. Sad.

It wasn’t even genuine outrage at what they were preaching. He planned to make a scene, and as he declared outside before entering the church, his main ambition was to get a chance to speak. It was all a big IRL trolling.

It could have been a fine exposé if Neil hadn’t jumped the shark. Imagine if he had let the speaker finish, then in question time asked some hard questions back, and presented some solid and hard-to-argue-with Biblical reasoning. Hell, Neil could have simply quoted Genesis 1:27 and dropped the mic!

So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

Genesis 1:27 (NIV)

It was an ill-considered and ugly stunt, not unlike many others Neil has done, and although I vehemently agree with Neil’s right to debate and protest and speak in a public space, this was not in a public space, and it served no purpose for his cause or anyone’s. If anything, this will garner more sympathy from the atheist radical left towards the “Christian” radical left.

All that aside (Neil and the spectacles he causes are more amusing to me than anything usually), the most important thing to me is my friend, Dia, who like many of us is prone to make bad judgements of character and intent, and as such occasions herself into the way of drama and scandal, but is also someone from whom I have never witnessed an iota of malice, and from whom I regularly witness genuine humility. This error of judgement has cost her her job, and perhaps that’s a just cost in God’s view, that is not for me to say. But I believe that she has already (and can continue to) learn from this.

Many on the right in Australia have been enamoured with Neil Erikson and his stunts, but given that my first impression of him was as a home invader against a friend of mine (over a matter that they apparently later resolved with words, thanks to the mighty courage that Christ puts into Dave Pellowe and his outstanding capacity for forgiveness), I have always looked at Neil with suspicion. I’ve never met Neil, I don’t know him, have never interacted with him, but I have seen enough of his videos to get a sense of him. I don’t think he’s a bad guy. I don’t think he’s reprehensible, though he has done some reprehensible things. I think he’ll be on the right side of history with many of the things that he stands for. But it is evident that he is impulsive, and perhaps a little more concerned with reactive publicity and garnering outrage than carefully campaigning to expose and critique the horrors and depravity that are so abundant in our culture and law right now.

So, to Neil (if you read this), I hope that you can cool off for a while and consider what your plan is, and what you’re doing it for, and how best to serve the higher cause of our country for which you hold such love and patriotism. Yes, wrong ideas need to be beaten to a pulp, but only figuratively, with words. Nobody has a right to force anyone else into a debate. If you allow your enemy no retreat, you will exhaust your own resources needlessly, and gain no ground. And you don’t have a right to show up on other people’s property or at other people’s events uninvited, and stink up the joint. If someone asks you to leave, learn to be a gentleman, and leave. It’s pretty simple. In a public space, Fed square or the like, go for gold mate! We pay taxes and rates to maintain such places so that you can exercise your right to annoy, cajole, ridicule, and criticise any public person or group you like. More power to you when you do. Just don’t take a dump on other folks’ lawns!

I don’t like participating in gossip, but public actions demand public criticism. This is not an attempt to start a new fight, nor make an enemy, but rather to try and offer some calm and balanced criticism that might help everyone involved in future. Normally I don’t get involved in this kind of stuff at all, but when a real (and unplanned) decision is being made by grown man that leaves a woman they call a friend without employment, it’s probably time to speak up.

I hope Neil can reflect on this incident with some humility, learn the inherent lesson (as Dia appears to have), and continue to push the boundaries, without destroying all bridges in the process.

Addendum

Around the precise moment I finished writing this article, I was directed to an additional video by Neil on the matter, which appears to be self-explanatory. I’ll only add this: Neil is admitting explicitly that he can’t be trusted, and I think we should take him on his word.

The response from Neil…

17th March 2019

Following my above post criticising Neil Erikson’s action at the gay church recently, he asked for the opportunity to air his grievances with my article on The Uncuckables, and we had a very spirited conversation to try and sort it out last night. Not the last conversation, I’m sure. I think it went well. Hopefully folks can draw some value from it one way or the other.

Jon Snow is the archetypal modern Western “man”.

(Video for those who don’t read good)
“Dany is out late again… I hope she comes home soon. I don’t trust those unsullied jocks.”

You STILL know nothing, Jon Snow.

***SUBTLE SPOILERS AHEAD***

Last night we watched the penultimate episode of the epic saga of Game of Thrones, from HBO (based on George RR Martin’s book series A Song of Ice and Fire). It was predictably disappointing, but at the same token, not a bad analogy for what is happening, and going to happen, in the Western world today and over the coming decades.

The “secret king” has remained a pathetic, bumbling, passive cuck who is absolutely responsible for all that carnage in King’s Landing. It would seem there is no lesson or price too severe to be educational for little Jonny Snowflake.

The sacking of Washington DC, 2021 (colourised).

The blood (and ash) is on Jon’s hands. The Mad Dragon Queen revealed herself a long time ago to be unfit to rule anyone, and the only man apparently fit (and rightfully destined) to rule needs to see the whole city ablaze and everyone dead to even begin to realise that he should have acted when he had the chance (repeatedly) and killed his mad aunt. But “Little Jon” (the one down south) might have a bit too much influence in his command decisions (or lack thereof).

The only truly consistent and trustworthy character was also just slain in cold blood right in front of the duo of weak midgets (Jon and Tyrion) who knew he was innocent and deserving of a chance to continue living and serving the realm.

As to the writing… I can’t wait for this pedestrian garbage to be over. Ending the white walkers with a deus ex machina was lame enough (after seven years of hyping them up as the greatest and most difficult foe to beat while they verrrry slowly walked south), but there was a heap more contrived miracles in this episode! What was once a show of relatively gritty realism (for the fantasy genre) has become a hollow vehicle of scripting convenience, designed merely to carry the undeniably amazing, but totally over-used production design and visual effects.

Let’s be honest, every still-living character is a disappointment. All the truly great characters have died, or been made two-dimensional (or returned North of the Wall to the real promised land). The only remotely satisfying relationship arc conclusions so far have been for the brothers: Jamie & Tyrion (reconciliation), and Sandor & Gregor (mutual annihilation).

If there is not a dramatic and unexpected turn (perhaps a genuine deus ex machina like the physical arrival of the Lord of Light, or something) in the next episode, the takeaway of all these seasons will simply be: might is right, female appetites (insatiable as they can be) must be pandered to, and no one ever learns. In a word: nihilism.

“Maybe I should have done something to stop this…”

Jon Snow should have been a MAN by this season. They wouldn’t let him be. Game of Thrones is a postmodern dismantling of the hero’s journey, replaced with an Oedipal nightmare about a tiny man-child who is granted every stroke of luck (including extra lives!), but who won’t step up and be a man, and won’t call out his abusive elder female and put her in her place (at least not until she’s scorched the whole earth and there’s no one left to rule).

There’s one more episode. I hope it’s used wisely. It may only satisfy me if it is the trial and execution (by hanging, drawing, and quartering) of Jon Snow, the Secret Gamma King and cowardly traitor of Westoros.

Why aren’t I criticising Daenerys, then? She is after all the mother and rider of the dragon which murdered the masses of King’s Landing. I’m not criticising her because her untrustworthy, impulsive, destructive, cruel, and self-deluded nature has been apparent since about Season 3. Since then I have held no hope of a righteous rule under the Mad Dragon Queen. Jon, however, has every gift and skill available, except courage when it is most needed. He could rule, and rule well, as the script-writers have kept telling us right on the nose. Disappointingly, he’s a typical emo millennial, and probably an avid reader of Jordan B Peterson – much more concerned with his own inadequacies and failings than with making a choice and taking action to save lives.

Jon Snow is the archetypal modern western “man”. He perfectly encapsulates everything wrong with the average European man today; rich in privilege, intelligence, foresight, and natural leadership, but refusing to use those gifts for their designated purpose. Jon’s failure to act to prevent or reverse the mad feminine and foreign overthrow of his people is as much a betrayal of the civilisation that shelters him as burning it to the ground himself. Jon Snow, it turns out, is the villain of the tale. Gotcha!

Let this miserable narrative be a warning to the real-world West: if you are a man, and you can act, then you must. If you hesitate, or get too busy cleaning your own room to pay attention to what’s happening outside, then you will watch your world burn, and it will be (in large part) your own fault.

Winter is truly coming, and we need heroic kings like Perseus, Theseus, Aragorn, King Peter, and King Arthur, not tiny cowardly gamma cucks like Jon Snow.

So, remaining men of Westoros, what will it be? Winter is coming, and wolves are desperately needed. Are you ready?