Intellectuals, Populists, and the Trap of Objectivity

An interesting phenomenon has occurred regarding Sarah Palin.  The intellectuals of the ‘dust-covered right’, affectionately known as the ‘paleo-conservatives’, have joined the neoconservatives and leftists in heaping scorn on the former governor of Alaska.

One such diatribe appeared today by an otherwise good writer, Paul Gottfried, while many other similar ones have appeared over the past few months in various locations.  The crux of the complaint is that Palin is uneducated and revels in her lack of worldly knowledge, and appeals to those equally uneducated and reveling in lack of worldly knowledge, and this is bad because one should aspire to education and knowledge.  Objectively, they have a very valid point.

To put this objective analysis in context, a quite interesting study was recently released declaring that “Liberalism, atheism, male sexual exclusivity linked to IQ” The study explains that “The reasoning is that sexual exclusivity in men, liberalism and atheism all go against what would be expected given humans’ evolutionary past.”  This matches with other studies showing gays to have higher than average IQ.  To override natural instincts requires an act of conscious brainpower, and those with greater brainpower are more likely to be able to overcome their natural instincts.

As noted in the article: “The study takes the American view of liberal vs. conservative. It defines “liberal” in terms of concern for genetically nonrelated people and support for private resources that help those people.”  “Liberals are more likely to be concerned about total strangers; conservatives are likely to be concerned with people they associate with,” he said.  Given that human ancestors had a keen interest in the survival of their offspring and nearest kin, the conservative approach — looking out for the people around you first — fits with the evolutionary picture more than liberalism, Kanazawa said. “It’s unnatural for humans to be concerned about total strangers.” he said.

The study also hypothesized “Bailey also said that these preferences may stem from a desire to show superiority or elitism, which also has to do with IQ. In fact, aligning oneself with “unconventional” philosophies such as liberalism or atheism may be “ways to communicate to everyone that you’re pretty smart,” he said.”

This explains the obsession with ‘objectively’ which has forever plagued our people.  In one sense, it is essential for those at the top of society to maintain some sense of objectivity, in order to prevent society from degenerating into an African-style melee of constantly warring clans, gangs, and mafias.  Yet, like many elements of liberalism, it has been elevated to the level of a religion, one which even the ‘anti-liberal’ intellectuals like Gottfried have fallen prey to.

From an unobjective standpoint, Palin and her legions of followers aren’t that bad, as far as white interests go.  If every family was like the Palins: 5 children, self sufficient, and proud of both, this would erect a tremendous barrier to the jewish plan to permanently displace whites in America and all other countries.  The demographic war on our people would be halted or reversed, and whites would not be so beholden to the Bolshevik style nanny-state.

Obviously Palin and friends have some flaws: support of Israel and the dysgenic ‘culture of life’ policies advanced by the evangelical Christians and embodied in Palin’s flaunting of her Down Syndrome child.  However, the most important central, uniting goal of jews has never been support for the state of Israel, but creating a safe haven for the diaspora in the way described by longtime activist Earl Raab in his 1995 book ‘Jews and the New American Scene’: “The Census Bureau has just reported that about half of the American population will soon be non-white or non-European. And they will all be American citizens. We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country.

We [i.e., Jews] have been nourishing the American climate of opposition to bigotry for about half a century. That climate has not yet been perfected, but the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible ‘and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.”

This ‘American climate of opposition to bigotry’ they have been nourishing is the ‘objectivity as a religion’ to which conservative intellectuals, even iconoclasts like Gottfried, have fallen prey to.  This is what we must take in mind when we review the criticism by ‘conservative intellectuals’ of Palin and friends which is most applauded by race realists: that Palin and the ‘Tea Party’ crowd are uneducated and revel in their ‘ignorance’.  As noted before, this an objectively valid criticism.  But how bad is it?

The average working and middle class white people may not be brimming with intellectual vigor, but neither are they suicidically stupid.  Most people note cause and effect in some form, and are aware at some level that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”  If a series of ships sailing to a particular area disappear, people stop sailing there.  If people who get bit by a certain type of snake tend to die, people stay away from snakes that look like that.  Rats and the bubonic plague are a prime example:  the rats were not actually carriers of the disease, it was fleas on the rats, a fact which few if any of them knew.  Yet they figured out if rats appeared, the bubonic plague appeared as well, thus it was best to keep the rats away.

This describes the current situation regarding most middle and working class white Americans and their views of ‘intellectuals.’  They don’t know that 22% of Ivy League students are jewish.  They don’t know that a large portion of university professors, much of the ‘mainstream media’, conservative think tanks, and ‘respectable’ conservative pundits such as Charles Krauthammer, David Frum, David Brooks, and Bill Kristol are jewish.  They wouldn’t believe it if you told them, and would call you a ‘crazy nazi conspiracy theorist.’  If they did get it into their heads that this was so, they’d insist from the bottom of their hearts that it didn’t matter.

Yet, they know something is wrong.  They trusted the liberal elites to run the country of the ‘Great Society’, and the country got screwed up.  They threw them out and replaced them with Republicans, who drew on their network of think tanks to staff their administration, and things didn’t get any better.  They threw them out and replaced them with smart, sensible, calm, clean, articulate Obama, and things continued to get worse.  People of the Palin fan type have figured this out, and concluded that relying on elites and suits has led to the demise, therefore they shall revel in anti-intellectualness and lack nuanced reasoning and worldly knowledge.

As noted by Gottfried in his recent article:  “Sarah’s prominence on the American right might seem to some to be disproportionate to what she has shown in terms of verbal facility or knowledge about current events…when she displayed a woeful ignorance of foreign affairs, was not a leftist ambush but a shocking revelation.”

This actually appeals to her fans, as Gottfried finds: “Sarah taps a populist vein, which is peculiarly American. Unlike its European bourgeois counterpart, typified by a movement such as the Lega Nord, American populism equates corniness with anti-elitism.”  “Further, her education at a community college and at the University of Idaho renders her even more attractive to those who are already inclined to like her: her lack of impressive educational credentials betokens the lack of the snobbery that is identified with the bearers of Princeton or Harvard degrees.”

Gottfried, like others in the ‘intellectual conservative movement’, reacts with dismay: “If the American Left stresses victimhood, managerial control, and Political Correctness, then the American populist Right exalts PLAINNESS. In a campaign speech I heard the then Republican governor of Wisconsin Lee Dreyfuss give in Madison in 1980, the speaker electrified the crowd by proclaiming: “We’re all descended from the scum and refuse of the Old World.” As Dreyfuss finished this sentence, the ecstatic lady sitting next to me cried out: “That was really rightwing!” That, by the way, was the last time I attended a Republican rally, as a party member or even as an outsider.”

Simply giving up and dismissing these people as worthless is the wrong path to take.  For a people to adopt a new way of thinking, they must first throw off the old way of thinking.  This is how the radical multiculturalists came into power through cultural Marxism: before the tenents of cultural Marxism could be established as policy, they first had to destroy the old order, which is why they relentlessly attacked Christianity, patriotism, ‘family values’, and everything associated with the old traditional way of thinking.  Once these institutions were destroyed, they were able to move in and establish a new order, a Bolshevik style nanny state.

We are now at the stage where the Bolshevik style nanny state is beginning to crumble, insofar as its mental hold on the white masses goes, aided by new forms of communication which make it more difficult for the jewish led elites to conceal the fact that their nanny state can’t deliver on the promises it made.  For people to be able to once again adopt a folkish way of life, it is essential that their misplaced trust in the institutions of the Bolshevik style nanny state be destroyed.

Under this analysis, the anti-intellectualism and anti-establishmentism of the Palin fans should be encouraged and embraced, rather than ridiculed and looked upon with disdain.  Not because it is facially good at an objective level to mock intellectuals, and not that Palin offers any great alternative plan, but because the current intellectual establishment in charge is fully determined to crush and destroy any chance of a white homeland.  Before people will tune in to us, they must first tune out the garbage emitted by the current establishment.

Once we step outside the trap of objectivity, we can analyze the anti-intellectualism of the Palin fans in the light of “is this good for whites?”  Clearly it is, as it is combats the demographic war on whites, and blocks the transmissions of the cultural Marxists that currently occupy America’s educational system and ‘inside the beltway’ establishment.


  1. Silver,

    There is no question I have posted comments I ought not to have made, and I realize I ought to have exercised greater self-control. To the extent such comments hamper the prospects for achieving the ultimate goal, that of racial preservation, feelings of despair and frustration are certainly no excuse at all.

    It is always important to keep in mind that racial separation is the objective. Convincing my co-ethnics of the necessity of separation and trying to persuade other groups that they too have an interest in separation is the top priority. Perhaps you are correct and it would not be terribly difficult to do so but for the problem of dissemination of the idea, especially from a perspective different from the one racialists usually put forth.

    Your comments on economics and esthetics have given me some things to think about.

  2. MGLS,

    There is no question I have posted comments I ought not to have made, and I realize I ought to have exercised greater self-control.

    Just to clarify, the reason that those comments are counterproductive is not so much that they upset the racial other. He already suspected you don’t really like him, anyway; and he probably feels the same way about you, and feels he can bide his time and wait for immigration to do the dirty work. (You should assume that any racial-other anti-immigration (or “pro-restriction”) activists out there have figured out that race-mixing does the same job, so they don’t need immigration.) The reason those comments are counterproductive is that allow your target audience to feel that they are “really accomplishing” something with their anti-racism. “Gosh, another horrible racist. I’m sure glad I don’t feel that way about others.” They won’t even begin considering the racial cost to themselves as long as they feel that way. That logic is so freakin simple you’d think a five year old could work it out, yet the EGI mavens at sites like Maj Rights insist, they flat out insist, that NO, we’ve got the arguments, we’ve got the proofs, we’ve got the statistics, we’re right! and if the other fellow refuses to see it our way, he’s the enemy, and he should be told to go fuck himself. That’s the note the ever exasperated GW always seems to end on when he does the rounds with the Guardianistas. (And beyond that, they seem to insist that their reasons are the only valid ones for racialism, which is a bit like living in Toronto and insisting that only those who like living there for the same reasons as you have a right to live there. But I digress.)

    On the other hand, if you’re forced to look for coalitions, then it does make sense to consider your impact on the racial-other too. (You don’t have to worry about me; I’m a big boy.) I’ll use myself as an example again. A seasoned America-watcher, I’ve been aware of (modern) “organized racialism” for over fifteen years. Remember the mid-90s? Ruby Ridge, the Year of the Angry White Male, Oklahoma City, the militias etc? I’d just gotten access to the net via an old unix terminal and I’d spend countless hours after (and during, for that matter) classes on usenet and talking to Americans via ntalk and ytalk. I remember reading discussions of those incidents on usenet, fascinated by what I was sure were racist sympathizers. I didn’t care to actually consider their views; they were just “crazy white racists” in my mind, completely and utterly crazy. Then around 2000 or 2001 I came across the Irving-Lipstadt trial, and I did give that some serious consideration, and was essentially persuaded that there was a genuine other side to the story, though of course I kept that to myself because “naturally” any whites getting wind of it would turn them all into raving nazis. Then somewhere around 2004 I took a serious look at immigration restriction and anti-Pee-Cee, and by 2006 I’d read all the Amrens and Occ Quarterlies and a number of older racialist books. Finally, it wasn’t until late 2007 that I decided, yep, the bastards actually have a case, and really not until last year that I realized not only have they got a case, but so have I, and, really, so does every person out there; that there’s no reason for me (nor for anyone) to feel beholden to the spin that the nutzi diehard puts on racial facts. Now, the point of recapping the time-line of my racial views is that it took way too long — way, way, way too long — to arrive at a racial worldview I could feel at ease with. Fair enough, the material mentioned wasn’t aimed at me, so naturally it’d take longer to digest it (if at all). But gimme a break, the American racialist has been at it for decades, and what headway has he made? None! Absolutely none. So maybe it isn’t just me; maybe it’s the whole way racialism is packaged and presented that is the problem. Come on, of course it is, and anyone with half a brain knows it is. I don’t expect too many of this blog’s readers to get it; they’re the traditions-o’-ma-granddaddy set, but that can only take you so far. You really need to be able to connect with the world out there beyond that.


    You’re living proof of the adage that a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.


    I think many people of different races would be supportive of the idea, especially if it involved creating small communities along those lines.

    They can be small, sure — or they can be very large. Truly, once one opens himself up to the idea, he’ll realize there are a large number of options, and certainly they are not necessarily a compromise on all-white — whiter than white, whiter than was ever thought possible — America from sea to shining sea. And come on, America was racially compromised from the very beginning. And if she had never expanded beyond the original colonies, wouldn’t that still be “America”? Of course it would. It’s the people, not the territory. If you’re going to have to border with someone — which you will have to, unless you plan on laying waste to the rest of the Americas — it’s better to border with people who have an interest in maintaining a mutually beneficial status quo than with, say, today’s meddlesome Mexicans who are hellbent on toppling it. Now, I’m sure that dyslexic fuck Jupiter will shriek that that would extend “China’s” borders to right next door, which isn’t really true, but even if it were, so what? Nepal, Bhutan, Mongolia, to name but a few, have all managed to avoid being snuffed out by the vastly more powerful forces that envelop them.

    Ironically such approaches are also more supportive of true diversity, too.

    Yes, I’ve heard that said before. But it’s so often mentioned halfheartedly, with no conviction behind, as though one doesn’t really expect one’s interlocutor to buy it. But why not? True, diversity isn’t a ‘direct’ strength, in the sense that GDP doesn’t go up or crop yields don’t increase as a result of it; but many people — huge numbers — find it pleasing in the sense that it has allowed them to experience positively — by focusing on the shared aspects of a common humanity — people who have historically been, or who might otherwise have been, their enemies. Sure, that doesn’t amount to much, and it’s certainly not without its difficulties, and it certainly isn’t so awesome that it justifies the price of one’s racial existence, but it’s something and not nothing, and it’s nonsensical to attempt to deny that aspect of people’s experience of it. If it’s possible to get the best of both worlds, why isn’t that preferable? That reasoning won’t appeal much to a nutzi who is out to avenge historical injustice, but it might just appeal to the other 99% of people out there.

Comments are closed.