At View from the Right, Lawrence Auster disputes Steve Sailer’s theory that white racial suicide is driven primarily by status competition. Instead, Auster argues that humans do and seek things because they are motivated by what they believe to be true and good. Thus, white liberals practice non-discrimination not to acquire status points in the eyes of their peers, but to feel morally self-righteous.
I incline more to the Sailer view. The typical white liberal doesn’t just feel morally or factually correct when denouncing the “racism” of White Nationalists, which would leave room for rational debate, but morally superior to his/her non-liberal Other, which is immediately associated with pavlovian stereotypes, so much so that nine times out of ten he will entertain no argument from the other side, since doing so is obviously beneath him. While the liberal truly does believe in racial equality, I find that this is almost always less of a consideration that the perception that “racists” are just unseemly, indecent people afflicted with a nasty form of moral leprosy.
Eight years of experience debating the issue has left me convinced that the average American almost never gives much thought to his racial beliefs. He is not really motivated by or interested in truth. As far as he is concerned, “racism” is immoral and that is the end of the matter, which is why the debate rarely progresses beyond epithets. He believes this is a self-evident moral truth that doesn’t require rational justification. The typical American was never taught even how to reason. Instead, he was taught and disciplined how to obey.
Where did Americans get these strange ideas? From their elites and authority figures: their friends, family, co-workers, neighbors, preachers and priests, teachers and professors, entertainers and reporters, favorite authors and rulers. Every institution around them is broadcasting the anti-racist message. Few Americans believed in racial equality until their elites started to expect them to. This is clearly seen in the seventy years worth of polling data on white racial attitudes. Public opinion followed elite opinion in every region of the country after about twenty or thirty years of socialization.
Why then do racialists still exist at all? It is mostly because of differences in intelligence and personality types. The extremely introverted dismiss status concerns as irrational/irrelevant and enjoy testing their ideas. They ask critical questions which simply do not occur to other people . . .
– Why am I supposed to believe ‘racism’ is immoral?
– Why did Americans once believe otherwise?
– Is the evidence for racial equality convincing?
– Who benefits from the widespread belief that ‘racism’ is immoral? Who doesn’t?
… and so on.
On the other hand, you have the gutter racist types who dismiss public opinion either out of sociopathy or lower intelligence.
The anti-racism of the masses is best explained by patterns of dominance/submission, status seeking, and brainwashing, but that doesn’t explain why the prevelance of anti-racism amongst the American elite. The big capitalists and Jews are motivated by self-interest. Historical flukes and coincidences, the sheer drift of time explains much of the rest.
“…but that doesn’t explain why the prevelance of anti-racism amongst the American elite. ”
I feel comfortable saying that the shift in elite opinion precisely occurred in the run-up to WWII, the conclusion of which saw the immediate desegregation of the military, under Truman, and then forced desegregation under threat of federal force, by direct order from Eisenhower.
But still, I wonder, why did Truman feel the need to desegregate the military? And why did Eisenhower feel that some supreme court decision justified the threat of our military and national guard on the citizenry? Surely these men knew better, in fact Eisenhower was known to deride the “niggers” now and then on personal golf outings.
Well said: ‘“racism” is immoral and that is the end of the matter, which is why the debate rarely progresses beyond epithets.”‘ That’s exactly it. Debate is impossible. What we have instead, is warfare.
What distinguishes the “extremely introverted” from the “gutter racist types”? Higher intelligence? Though well-read and a university graduate (B.A., M.Phil., progress towards a PhD.), I consider myself extremely racist (and proudly so); I arrived at my points of view through long experience, questioning of authority, and the careful digestion of empirical data.
Re: Truman
– Public opinion in the North had turned dramatically against ‘racism’ during the war.
– Truman had a tough reelection fight in 1948 and needed the black urban vote in the North.
Re: Eisenhower
– He was motivated by the negative impression segregation had on ‘world opinion’ during the Cold War.
It is oversimplification to say it is always one or always the other.
If you study criminal psychology, you will find that similar crimes can often be committed for very different motives. For instance Holmes and Deburger break up serial killers into different groups. I think anti-racists can be broken up into different groups too.
Mission-orientation probably motivates some anti-racists, and expediance probably motivates other anti-racists.
Steve Sailer has the proximate explanation pegged, just as Kevin MacDonald has the ultimate explanation pegged. Jews created and the anti-racialist ideology, and their primary means of promoting it has been through controlling status allocation (via mass media control).
By the way, how does anyone read Lawrence Auster for more than five minutes without realizing that he’s obviously just trying to channel racialist frustration into ineffectual and/or pro-Jewish outlets?
“Re: Eisenhower
– He was motivated by the negative impression segregation had on ‘world opinion’ during the Cold War.”
Sickening that we must all fall on our swords before the altar of “world opinion”.
Perhaps our slide into the abyss will help wake up some of the European nations
Everyone who follows Lawrence Auster and Ian Jobling is aware of their ‘Jews First’ perspective by now.
Auster may have his own perspective, but he doesn’t strike me as craving mainstream spotlight the way Jobling does. I don’t think Auster would be singled out as a “philosemite” if it wasn’t for his known Jewish ancestry. His views on Jews are mainstream, perhaps similar to that of vdare. Certainly he is no Chaim Ben Pesach.
What I mean is that Jobling is pro-Jew in an exagerated way at times, almost a desparate attempt to prove he’s “not a nazi,” and Auster is just indifferent in a more relaxed way.
The high indoctrinability combined with the low ethnocentrism of Whites provides a golden opportunity for parasitism. So long as Jews control the centers of indoctrination it will be an uphill march. I believe that if Whites will not wake up once the steel of multi-racialsim’s blade is slicing their flesh they never will.
Some of us Racialists exists because SOME schools actually did in fact teach CRITICAL THINKING.
“The big capitalists and Jews are motivated by self-interest.”
Well I would quibble that the jews are motivated by a desire for CONTROL. All that ‘chosen people’ stuff and what not.
Whites kill themselves because they are less primitive. Simple as that.