The Fallibility Of Race Realism

The uselessness of race in discourse on the origin of societal ails.

Intro: A Cool Allegory

The whole picture is seen then its pieces. Once can look upon a puzzle and after seeing the picture, they see the many intricate pieces that make it up. It’s not just that they’re pieces, though. Every piece is integral to the whole - they have their place, and if the puzzle constructor hadn’t taken the minutes, hours, or days to figure out where each piece belonged, then the whole beauty of the puzzle would be lost.

What happens when the pieces are lost? You notice them, and even though you can almost fully recapture in your imagination what the full image is supposed to be, it won’t be rebuilt truly without searching for the puzzle pieces needed to recover the puzzle art.

The race realist atheist and pagan, both not mutually exclusive but emanating from the same monad, are quite happy looking upon a puzzle missing up to half of its pieces, and call the puzzle complete. More to the point, they put the cart before the horse, but have yet to realize their embarrassing mistake and are incredulous as to why everyone is mocking them. Even Christians are culpable.

What I would like to accomplish here is fleshing out some of the reasons why defining oneself as a “pagan” or overemphasizing the necessity of race in society is but a puzzle piece - not the entire work of art. One might agree with that thesis itself, but as you dig deeper, you may even see that you’ve overemphasized certain trivial characteristics of society at the expense of its wholeness.

What They Get Right

A style of the right is emphasis on certain concepts that precede the left’s emphasis on dialectical materialism. The left’s historiographical conception is bankrupt and built on something as intellectually uncurious and spiritually dim as a tale of oppression, worsening material conditions, and enslavement. This conception is less reflective of higher principles and truth, which is why they are wrong the vast majority of the time, and why I personally, consider myself right-wing. Even though, when we get down to brass tacks, I have no interest in dead horses like muh freedom and low taxes that seem to be routinely beaten by the pedagogues of the modern right.

The reason I mention that last bit, even if a bit irrelevant, is because the modern right is still rhetorically fifty years behind on its economics principles. It will be superseded by those more economically aligned with Portuguese Presidente Antonio Salazar, or perhaps Pope Leo XIII. Many of these people don’t quite know how to put the pieces together, though, and that will be to their disfavor when they clamor for martinet systems of rigidity. That, we will get to. This section is for laud.

The right is almost universally defined by its firm rejection of dialectical materialism, most aspects of liberal society, and the yearning for inflexible societies firmly ensconced in tradition and culture. They’re against removal and annihilation. The new right, in many great ways, has disciplined itself in rejecting popular media, and propagandist systems that are used to sucker them. They are done with the manufacturing of consent by the left. They are over treating their enemies as if they want a civil debate, but just see the parallax from a different position. They know they are dominated, toyed with, and there is a system that is wholly and firmly oriented towards the destruction of tradition, taboo, culture, and civil society - AKA rightists.

If anything, the spirit of the right is praiseworthy. It will obviously continue to grow, make headway, and have many successes, as it offers truth and stone foundations. The left doesn’t. They are orientated in a position of hedonistic self-destruction and ephemerality.

Where They Are Wrong

But there are missing puzzle pieces that the right has yet to lay down. They often make the mistake of generalizing as a key explication of all societal woes. Don’t worry, I am not going to make the midwit generalization fallacy - “Grr! The generalization you made is dumb because I have one exception! Everything you just said has to be rescinded!”

They seem to grasp that the cultural and spiritual deaths of liberalism have resulted in numerous societal maladies, so in a sort of retributive retaliation against modernity, they idealize a nonexistent time somewhere in undefined history where everything was perfect. They glorify the perceptible material aspects of say Vikings or Romans. They read about how epic everything was, and envision a speculative and imaginary story. They experience it purely materially - how in a tribe everyone was from the same race, how such ancient societies were masculine and tough, how they didn’t justify war, etc. Possibly a few virtues are used as tokens of justification for how great these eras were, but the fixation seems to be purely coming from a place of retaliation and aesthetical idols, rather than yearning for greatness. They are not legitimately in spiritual contact with the demons of their Un-Christened ancestors, but that doesn’t matter - what matters is the aesthetic.

Perhaps this is why when you invoke love, truth, beauty, and charity, they are incredulous, bewildered, or downright incensed that you’d be so stupid as to bring up such ideals. “Ah! This is why we will lose with you damn Christians on our side!” Their interest is not in a peaceful society of charity and love. Their interest is in concocting larpy stories of supposed greatness. They are fixated on domination, bloodlust, lust lust, and hatred. The reason these people idolize bodybuilding is because they are entirely drowned in the self. In fact, that is why they live - for empowerment of the self. Society doesn’t function on the self. That’s actually how society breaks down.

But to get back to race, they seem to overly fixate on that characteristic. Their pre-Christian ancestors would not have done this. A Viking did not attack enemy tribes or the many foreign nations that it sacked because muh race. The predicate of thousands of years of pagan society was not on my race better than your race. No, it was religion. It was spiritual. It was humanity, blinded by its own man-made horrors or communion with demons, trying within its own human spirit to encounter God. The domination of enemy tribes was not some vain bestial instinct. It was the destruction of those who were wrong, evil, lower. The justification wasn’t predicated on race, but the fact that the enemy tribes were literally evil or at least lesser and did not honor the demons the subject tribe worshipped.

What neo-pagans don’t understand is they’re trying, in vain, to simulate the existence of societies that preceded man’s actual encounter with the Godman on earth. They are attempting to manufacture an ideal society from whole cloth. They take certain perennial realities and make a god out of them. In effigy, they worship race, physiology, and two-dimensional statistics they saw on twitter. Rather than living up to higher principles, and veneration of the treasures they could store in Heaven, they get lost in the positive feedback loop of the self. In this hellish rhythm of thinking and interface with “truth,” they are bound for Limbo at best (what they call “Valhalla”). They are obsessed with the temporal aspects of pre-liberal societies, which reflects in their empowerment of the self and the precepts of vanity, greed, and tyranny. Maybe what they’d call “self-discipline, power, and order!”

Lost In Simulation

No one is really safe from these misconceptions. Throughout the right the elevation of statistics is something they put before anything, and it informs their conclusions. Statistics cannot construct a proper image of society. They are meant to inform certain positions of power or vocation of potential trends, and to perhaps call for edict. However, the right likes to take this to a whole ‘nother level. Rather than using real interactions with real actual people in the real actual world, they use graphs made by third parties to inform their intricate beliefs and thought patterns. In doing so, their interface with society itself is distorted. Rather than projecting a potential answer to society in any way based on experience, anecdote, and interaction with the unpredictabilities of life, they base their worldview on graphs. (Their thinking is Ben Shapiro-tier. Facts over feelings!)

This precedes their religious beliefs, generally, and it is a major factor in the discrepancy between the rightist Christians and the coexistence between their fixation on crime statistics and their religion. Perhaps this is why they falter so much in marrying the two worlds in their lives, and instead stay silent about their beliefs with other Christians, for fear that they may sound eccentric. There are obviously many other reasons for this, but I am just bringing up one that none of you will ever talk about. Rightist Christians ought to understand that the “is’s” of now are not to inform their “oughts,” but that’s exactly what they do. Rather than being edified by the history of the Church’s teachings and doctrines, they put fat internet atheists’ opinions first and foremost. They put muh facts before the truth of the logos.

This isn’t to say that churches generally are racially homogenous. Mine isn’t, but that’s beside the point. They generally are. I’m not denying that. I know many people will say that I am denying the existence of race and it as very real factor motivating our decisions that lies dormant within our mind. Many people who are terminally online, or simply just have an animalistic hatred for other races are always going to rebel. It’s in their spirit. They use Christianity as an aesthetic only, just like pagans use an extinct Nordic religion. For those operating with logical minds, though, the important precepts of the Church, and of Jesus’s teachings, have dominion over whatever you are intuiting intellectually, instinctively, or otherwise. Just as I explained the fallibility of pagans and their view on race, the overarching issue with race as a factor for Christians and the general right is as follows:

1. Racial disharmony is due to our natural need to be with our own race.

2. Therefore, we must segregate/balkanize/some other half-assed, twisted, or otherwise impractical answer.

The antecedent development of this being varied. Some come to the recognition of racial differences and the “therefore x must happen” problem because they experienced legitimate racial disharmony directly. Though, this is generally as sidenote of the main issue being - they recognize things that they are told aren’t real. This has culminated in a religion of noticing. There isn’t prescriptive use to this, nor will it develop into anything other than, “People of this race do this therefore race bad/should not exist near me or governing over me.” Once again, the “is” being construed with the “ought.” There is no interest in remedying maladies, but simply engaging in rebellion against modernity with no clear answer. In a sense, they aren’t even angry at the way society is, but what simulation of it they’re viewing through their computer screen.

It makes sense, though. People are lost in the simulation. Their interface with reality is so skewed by the internet that they develop knee-jerk reactions to anecdote and experience. They develop a firm distaste of how the world actually works. They don’t realize so much good could be done if they got out of their cozy hyperreal echo chamber. Society would be greatly improved if men who had the potential to be great weren’t hardening their hearts and darkening their minds with cynicism and repulsive attitudes to the heterodoxy of reality. For Christians, what sense even is there in capitulating your beliefs in the eternality of souls and the potentiality for goodness in everyone (or at least most people, yes even those who aren’t white!)? If direct action at your parish was made to bring about more community, and the conversion of souls, how would that be a bad outcome? Much of the bad in society isn’t innate and somehow irreparable. You prepare for disaster when you think like that, and you shouldn’t - because Jesus is risen. (There is only a good end to all of this, if you’re saved.)

The likelihood of the left’s demise is certain. The future holds the potential for legitimate answers, and much of it won’t be developed by trying to mimic the past purely as how it looked, or other such harebrained, materialistic solutions. The origination of your answers is found in the logos. The Son of God who told you exactly how you should live to be virtuous and Heaven-bound. When did he say to be undisciplined and spiteful? To empower yourself over others? To frustrate and retribute? Christ continuously said to forgive, let go, love, fast, pray, and repent. Once again, this is the “ought,” and many of you seem to be concerned with the “is” of original sin. Of course, we are tempted, but the telos of Christ is what should lead us away from spitefulness and resentment. This love transcends mouthbreathing neo-pagans who simply want to bash and destroy everything they disdain. These people’s lasting mark will be just as trivial and tragic as the mark left by their pre-Christian ancestors.

In your immediate life, you are called to be good. Apart from joking and statistics on race and crime or race and IQ, your first calling isn’t to blather about this as if it is the new gospel! What you are called for is to be Christ-like. This doesn’t mean driving the stake between races further. This means living as a good model of Christ for everyone, regardless of who they are. What is the pagan answer? The answer of a race realist? It’s to be self-centered, egomaniacal, snakelike, and resentful of nonwhites. This evil is not to be harbored within you.

Likewise, the potential for a multiracial society to prosper is possible (or largely monoracial societies being friendly with other largely monoracial societies. This is all very vague and requires further explanation). Much of the chinks in the armor are going to have to be repaired. Much of the brokenness must be mended. This doesn’t mean, though, that somehow cultures cannot prosper in relation to one another. Culture can be empowered. People can choose to be separate, and will likely choose their own kind over others. Nothing is greater than family on this earth. Does that mean, somehow, we ought to organize everything under the sun towards what “seems natural?” When was there ever a truly homogenous society? When was there a good, civil society that prioritized everything based on how beasts live? What one should be concerned with is the even more real supernatural, yet instead the directive seems to be coming from a twisted, misunderstood place. The homogeneity of the principalities of the animal kingdom is because they are wild and chaotic. A bird flies with a bird of the same feather because they must.

Imagine if the federal government banned porn, the public display of sexuality, brothels, cracked down heavily on drugs, the normalization of degenerate ways of living through advertizing and media, etc. Apart from much of society that would require reeducation and stern discipline, most people, regardless of race, would fall in line. Perhaps your issue is not the color of those you are forced to associate with (O Lord, what a heavy cross!), but perhaps the way society is inherently organized to disempower the Church and dismantle the family.

Maybe focus a little less on race. It’s a dead letter, and will have little to no function in synthesizing solutions for the post-liberal paradigm.

Ite, missa est.

“These things I have spoken to you, that my joy may be in you, and your joy may be filled. This is my commandment, that you love one another, as I have loved you. Greater love than this no man hath, that a man lay down his life for his friends. You are my friends, if you do the things that I command you. I will not now call you servants: for the servant knoweth not what his lord doth. But I have called you friends: because all things whatsoever I have heard of my Father, I have made known to you.”

John 15: 11-15