Tag Archives: mencius moldbug



I’ve used the term faux-White in essays and comments here and in other forums. It merits an explanation.

By faux-White I mean specifically those double-talking pro-jews who try to dictate to Whites who we are and what we’re permitted to think. Their rhetoric is also notably disingenously anti-”liberal”. They won’t squarely face the anti-White nature of neo-liberalism or the jewish interests it serves. They espouse a carefully constrained race-realist neo-”white” version of neo-liberal “non-discrimination”: we’re all equal but jews are more equal.

For a good example of in-your-face faux-White pro-jewish arrogance read just about anything written by The Undiscovered Jew. For example, see his comments at OneSTDV’s “More Thoughts on White Ethnostate”. For a double dose of faux-Whiteness see his exchange with Auster in Is human bio-diversity the next conservatism? I noted the strange humor they find in their own confused hypocrisy in A Moron Amused by a Fool Helping an Idiot.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that faux-Whites are often semi-jews. They exhibit a deep psychological conflict, craving for whatever reason to be seen as White, or more accurately “white”, while deprecating Whiteness. They echo neo-liberal anti-White guilt-tripping even as they strike a pose against it. They tend to ignore, distract from, or dissemble about jewish exclusion/particularism/discrimination/supremacism and anti-White culpability.

Contrast faux-Whites with ordinary Whites, who generally don’t want to discuss race, and certainly not jews, but when we do we tend to speak earnestly, without guile. Then compare faux-Whites with ordinary jews, who tend to be openly concerned about what they think is best for jews, and almost unanimously recoil with disgust at White anything. The main difference is that faux-Whites are able to partially mask this disgust and are more cryptic or even in complete denial about the primacy of their pro-jewish priority, but they tellingly denounce anyone who sees through them as “anti-semitic”. Rather than attacking from outside they prefer to cloak themselves in “white” as they subvert/co-opt/neuter Whiteness from within.

For more on neo-liberalism, White/jew double standards, and typical faux-White behavior see Fruitloopable Presumption, The Urge to Purge, A Censorious Debate, and Race Realism Meets Tribal Denial (Mencius Moldbug.is more iconoclastic reactionary semi-jew than faux-White).


Race Realism Meets Tribal Denial

Mencius Moldbug has taken up my challenge to explain the immigration invasion.

"A theory of the ruling underclass" is flawed, but in an interesting way. Like Lawrence Auster, Mencius criticizes liberals (which he prefers to call universalists or progressives). And like Auster he has a curious blind spot. The difference is that Mencius has been more willing to argue about it, and I have yet to see him dissolve into unhinged anti-anti-semitism ala Auster.

Triggered by the obtuseness of Obama-supporting progressives who shrug off black nationalism while despising White nationalism, Mencius begins by pointing the glaring inconsistency in liberal anti-racist logic:

Which is the incontrovertible fact that the vast majority of chauvinist ethnocentrism in America today is not of the vanilla flavor that disturbs them so. If they can explain this, they can explain anything, and we should probably just surrender – if they’ll let us.

For example: one of the most popular radio stations in San Francisco, at least to judge by the billboards I see, is called The Race. I am especially fond of the URL. “I am race!” Yes, this means exactly what you think it means.

Ethnic pride is one thing. Hostility is another. But – as progressives often observe – they tend to travel together. It strikes me as quite incontrovertible that if an alien anthropologist were to visit Earth and collate expressions of hostility toward human subpopulations in Western culture today, the overwhelming majority would be anti-European. Anti-Europeanism is widely taught in schools and universities today. Its converse most certainly is not.

So here is my challenge for progressives, multiculturalists, “dynamists,” and the like: if your antiracism is what it claims to be, if it is no more than Voltaire 3.0, why do non-European ethnocentrism and anti-European hostility not seem to bother you in the slightest? Do they maybe even strike you as, um, slightly cool? How do you feel when you watch this video?

Please try to express your answer in plain English, not Stalinist boilerplate. Trust us – we know the boilerplate answer.

What’s interesting, at least to this antisocial reactionary (if you’re looking for another R-word, I also answer to “realist”), is that anti-Europeanism is almost as hard to explain from the other side of the table. I am reasonably, if not comprehensively, familiar with modern racist and white nationalist thought. I must say that it tends to leave me quite unsatisfied – especially as regards the real psychological motivations of Messrs. Wilkinson, Ghertner, et al.

Are they, for instance, in the pay of the Jews? While I certainly cannot disprove this or a variety of similar conjectures, I tend to doubt them. Occam’s razor suggests that even if some multiculturalists are tools of the Mossad, surely the vast majority are perfectly sincere in their beliefs. The Rothschilds just don’t have that much cash. If we work under the assumption that our opponents believe exactly what they say, we should account for at least most of them. Then we can watch Stormfront go head to head with the Elders of Zion, which should be entertaining if nothing else.

I have an explanation. You may not like it. Feel free to offer your own.

Mencius goes on quite a bit about black and white tribes before reviewing his personal class warfare vocabulary:

Early in UR I suggested a five-caste taxonomy of American society, and described the conflict of American politics as a struggle of three of these castes (Brahmins, Dalits, Helots) against the other two (Optimates, Vaisyas). For those whose time is short, Brahmins are intellectuals, Dalits are what Marx called the lumpenproletariat, and Helots are unskilled laborers. Optimates are the old “upper-crust” aristocracy, and Vaisyas are the petty bourgeoisie.

These castes correspond to social status, not tribe. However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless – classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status. As far as I can tell, in 2008 there is very little chauvinism even among Vaisyas. Among Dalits and Helots, race matters again. Obviously, despite certain Jackie Chan movies, there is no such thing as an interracial gang.

Mencius then attempts to argue how black (and presumably white) tribes don’t really matter because they are divided by class.

He inexplicably confounds this argument by recounting the melodramatic story of a sociology student’s naive trek into a black housing development and his interactions with the tribal militia there. If for some reason you need an introduction to what desegregation and civil rights of the 1960s “liberated” in every city, read the full post. Or watch this if you’d like to hear it from the militiamen themselves.

One of the many negative consequences of the invasion is that it brings in whole new tribes and militias, many of which are more organized, ruthless, and mobile than the indigenous black militias. If you happen to cherish multiculturalism and think diversity is a strength please go read that link. The last paragraph contains a special message just for you.

After much verbiage Mencius finally comes to his point:

The progressives no longer need muscle. They are in the saddle. There are no more Grayson Kirks, let alone Bull Connors. What they need now is votes, and the biggest vote bank of all is just south of the border. Immigration will keep the progressives in power for the next century. They always have been the American PRI, and they always will be.

And I haven’t even stated my theory yet.

Fortunately, it’s not my theory. It is a very old theory. Perhaps it even predates Mencius himself. It comes from China, so he would recognize it, and it has a catchy name: yi yi zhi yi.

This roughly translates as “using the barbarians to control the barbarians.” Typically the implication is that when you have a problem with some tribe of barbarians, what you need to do is look for a bunch of even nastier barbarians, and sic them on the original barbarians. Ideally, the nastier barbarians are so barbaric that they are not conceivably a threat to you, the sophisticated mandarins of the Middle Kingdom, but still nasty enough to distract your real enemies on the frontiers, who may have learned to read and write or something. When the Romans unleashed the Huns against the Germans, it was a classic case of yi yi zhi yi.

Does this remind anyone of the real meaning of diversity? I’d like to think it’s obvious. But perhaps I should just spell it out.

Basically, the Brahmins have every possible Machiavellian interest in encouraging an invasion of Third World barbarians. The more, the nastier, the better. Their real hereditary enemy is the native barbarian – the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter. In the dim, distant past, the spectre of Davis and Lee and Ben Hill looms grimly up.

They will take all the Huns they can get against this breed of barbarian. They are quite aware that if their real enemies ever seize real power, it’s lamppost time. Huns are not available these days, but J.T. is. And if the nationalist, nativist American right ever regrows some little pocket of testicular tissue, he is one more speed bump they’ll have to go through on their way to DC. It never hurts to have a few more well-armed thugs on your team. At least not if you’re a progressive, and you believe in peace and love and hugs and puppies. Yes, we can!

Of course, I’m not saying that the people who believe in peace and love, etc, actually thought up this strategy and have secret meetings where they gloat about how well it’s all working. They don’t need to. However they explain it to themselves, yi yi zhi yi is what they’re doing. And you can’t exactly call it a failure.

Did you watch that Mandela video? The man next to Mandela is Joe Slovo. One of South Africa’s leading progressives active in the liberation struggle. Or, as some might say, Communist terrorists. Do you wonder why this pasty-faced fellow is comfortable in a crowd full of people chanting “kill the whites?”

Actually, the captions on the video are mistranslated. The word in the song is amaBhulu, a Xhosa racial slur which refers not to all whites, but specifically to Afrikaners. Which Slovo (being a cosmopolitan Anglophone) is most definitely not. So the crowd is essentially chanting “kill the rednecks,” ie, Slovo’s hereditary tribal enemies. No wonder he has a smile on his face. Yi yi zhi yi.

No, I don’t like Mencius’ explanation. It’s certainly less politically correct than anything to be found in the mainstream, but there are several flaws.

The first and least important criticism is that I wish he would put more effort into fleshing out the analysis than weaving so many too-clever phrases. He writes in a way only brahmin are likely to understand, or afford the time to read. Judging from his commenters his eak-way ode-cay is not deflecting their isapproval-day.

A more substantial flaw is that with all he has to say about tribes he pretends as if the most powerful tribe of all doesn’t exist:

However, each of the top three castes is more or less tribeless – classic ethnic tribalism is a sure mark of Dalit or Helot status.

Come now. No tribalism amongst the upper classes? Between this and his euphemistic description of Joe Slovo as a “cosmopolitan Anglophone” Mencius has a prominent blind spot. The hand-waving about the Rothchilds and Elders of Zion fails to explain. Perhaps he can try waving away the ADL and the Israel Lobby.

Another somewhat related gap is his neglect of the corporatist/globalist/economic angle.

Yes, the cosmopolitan progressives Mencius likes to focus on certainly are addicted to the frisson of stirring shizzle from the safety of their ivory towers. I’ve sent more than my share of ridicule their way. A thinking person can only do this so long before they begin to wonder why such flimflam, no matter how ridiculous, persists.

For some reason, and despite his considerable economic savvy, Mencius doesn’t like to focus on that other, less ridiculous type of one-world universalist. The sober, ultra-rational cosmopolitan globalists. You know, the financial wizards who transform chaos into profit. The ones whose lackeys claimed we needed millions of savages to build all those houses we didn’t really need. The ones whose brilliant “industry” boils down to pyramid schemes and government bailouts. The name Soros might ring a bell, though his high profile is rather exceptional.

Without the powerful backing of economic revolutionaries the social revolutionaries would have swung from lampposts long ago. But with the proper financial backing it hardly matters whether a flimflam artist’s “logic” makes any sense.

Here’s what makes sense to me.

Yes, White elites are certainly betraying their lower-class kinsfolk for both social and financial reasons. They support the invasion over the objections of their kinsfolk. Mencius downplays or ignores the jewish tribe but their elites are obviously less conflicted on this issue. Their kinsfolk are financially and psychologically better prepared to surf the invasion’s waves, and they overwhelmingly favor the invasion. Besides the profits of an ever-growing pyramid they also have perfectly understandable sociobiological motivations to dispossess, displace, and ultimately liquidate their de-tribed competitors.

Auster prefers to euphemize the invasion as “liberals” warring on “the Christian majority”. He seems not to notice that the invaders are overwhelmingly Christian and the invasion is openly abetted by church leaders. Mencius portrays the invasion as class warfare, and seems not to notice that naming the tactics doesn’t explain why his “brahmin” should want or need to attack what he calls “[t]heir real hereditary enemy … the native barbarian – the half-civilized Vaisya, the ignorant megachurched Okie redneck, the Huckabee voter, the Bircher and McCarthyite, America Firster and Coolidge voter”.

Caste/class make us “hereditary enemies”? Sorry, for my part it’s the fact that they’re trying to ethnically cleanse me. For their part it’s clear that the universalist ideals of egalitarianism and tolerance are a steaming pile of hooey. The genocidal maniacs appear to be motivated by a combination of greed and deep-seated sociobiological passive-aggressive survival instinct.

We don’t need to look to Chin for precedents. As any well-educated jew should know, two thousand years before Machiavelli the Assyrians and Babylonians knew how to kill nations by flooding them with aliens.


White Nationalism and Anti-Semitism

I’ve spent some time lately at Unqualified Reservations. The blogger there, Mencius Moldbug, is a talented writer and consistent source of insightful analysis. Definitely a mapper, not a packer.

What originally caught my attention was his suggestion that a more or less clean reboot was possible, as opposed to say the violent anarchy, race riots, civil war, and genocide our elite’s mass immigration policies and anti-White political correctness seem to be propelling us toward. MM’s PC-violating essay accusing the government of spreading disinformation and pondering the real meaning of diversity further piqued my interest. This guy definitely thinks outside the box, and isn’t shy about constructing a new lexicon for his unboxed thoughts.

MM’s latest essay is entitled Why I am not a white nationalist. I’ve been pestering him with criticism for some weeks now, and I believe he was in part trying to answer me. I appreciate his effort. I had written a bit to flesh out that pestering here, but I never posted it. Now there’s really too much to say all at once. All along the response I’ve gotten from his commenters has been fairly hostile, and MM himself never really addressed my points, at least until now. I definitely haven’t felt welcome there, so I wasn’t very optimistic anything useful would come of an extended critique. Well now the gauntlet has been thrown down, as it were, and I feel compelled to make some response.

MM identifies Lawrence Auster, Vanishing American, John Savage, New Sisyphus, Age of Treason, and Old Atlantic Lighthouse as white-nationalist blogs. I had never before thought of any of them that way, but I won’t quibble over his label. Technically I think it probably fits me, and I suppose it fits Auster, VA, and OAL. By coincidence John Savage just gathered some links and wrote a bit about this very topic. I admit I haven’t read them, even now. John’s heart doesn’t seem to be in White nationalism. But that’s just my guess. I followed New Sisyphus until he morphed into New Nationalist a few months ago. Then NN went dead and he reactivated NS without explanation. I don’t know what’s going on there.

Personally I don’t think AoT belongs in the list. I’ll bet MM only included it because I was goosing him. Relative to the other bloggers I write less, of lower quality, and I’m a newcomer to the idea of White anything, much less White nationalism. Before this summer I really preferred to think of myself as colorblind and wished everyone else could be that way as well. I spent most of my blogging efforts handwringing about the jihadis and immigration, and poking holes in leftist logic. I like what I’ve read of Sam Francis. But I haven’t written anything at all, unless you consider “deport every illegal today” White nationalism. I have however in recent months been forced to adapt my view of the world fairly radically. Among the things that died were my unthinking philo-semitism and my respect for neoconservativism. So I’ll talk a little about that and how that relates to MM’s critique of White nationalism and anti-semitism.

This past May the actions of President Bush and the US Senate forced me to conclude that the US government is not just “out of touch” with the electorate, they are consciously, deliberately at odds with us. Our system is not a constitutional republic. It is not a democracy. It is a plutocracy.

By June it was clear that open border policies don’t even make sense when judged by their proponent’s standards.

In July I began to fully appreciate the widespread and long-standing media bias, including how they pump up pro-invasion politicians, do their best to exalt even illegal immigrants, and vilify anyone who opposes immigration.

By late July the Senate’s treason had been rebuffed, temporarily at least, and my support for the war in Iraq had changed. How could anyone concerned with America’s security to the point they support sending our boys to die overseas think at the same time the immigration invasion is no big deal and that we should just leave our borders undefended? But that, I dimwittedly began to realize, is precisely the nonsensical position of neoconservatives. I had previously held their views in esteem. Once I realized they generally favor immigration I felt stupid and betrayed. I discovered Lawrence Auster, who on a daily basis dissects and connects neoconservatism and liberalism in ways I had never seen before. Eventually through him I discovered Vanishing American and an extended community who share a pride and spirit that for all I had known had already vanished.

By September the Senate had tried several times to force their shamnesty through in smaller, stealthier pieces. I had become thoroughly aware of the MSM’s ham-handed “shaping” of public opinion. The vast extent and poisonous influence of political correctness had become equally obvious to me, as was the MSM’s role in propagating and enforcing that PC. By this time I felt my understanding of and opposition to PC was firm enough to commit its most mortal sin. In response to VA’s discussion of PC’s roots I made the point that the Jews had as much to do with PC as White Christians did, perhaps more. And I recognized Jews as enemies.

Recently I made a more elementary point at John Savage’s. Those who have the patience to read it can decide for themselves whether my argument makes sense. It concerns how one of Auster’s ideas applies to Jews.

I realize very well that for Auster anti-semitism is a bugaboo. He does not like David Duke and scolds Jared Taylor for associating with him. I link and read them both now because as far as I can see they tell the truth. I suppose Auster would label me an anti-semite if he knew or cared who I was. I don’t think he does, though he did link me once. It’s a shame really, because I feel I owe him a debt for the information and analysis he provides. I’ve never met or corresponded with him, but respect makes me hesitate to disagree with him. It’s not that I’m afraid he’ll convince me I’m wrong. I really don’t think he could. I’m more afraid he’ll just ignore this, or simply dismiss what I say as irrational without explanation. Honestly though, there are people in my own family I have to face and explain my opinions to. I agonize far more over their misgivings than anyone elses. Perhaps he’ll answer MM directly, or one of the other bloggers will answer and he’ll remark on their comments. Perhaps he has bigger fish to fry.

From Auster’s critique of Pat Buchanan I gather he thinks anti-semitism is not a matter of opinion. That, I say, is patent nonsense. Anti-semitism is a type of racism, and both words have been sufficiently abused as to make their meaning almost worthless without a paragraph or two specifying precisely what you mean. That’s about as subjective as you can get. If someone who uses those words goes to that kind of trouble then maybe, just maybe, they’re arguing in good faith. If they use either word alone they’re likely just trying to slur someone in an attempt to shut them up or get other people to stop listening.

For the record I will stipulate that I believe people who want to kill Jews just for being Jews do actually exist. I do not want that, and I have ever met anyone who has admitted to me that they wanted that, but I would agree to call anyone who did say they wanted that an anti-semite.

By the way, why don’t people who want to kill Whites get their own special label? Is it impertinent of me to interrupt this very grave discussion of anti-semitism and ask that question? In the US today murderous anti-White sentiment seems more common than murderous anti-semitism is. You can in fact openly call for the extermination of Whites as a race in public and people will applaud. Why won’t the MSM report such statements, much less give this kind of racist hate a special label? Why isn’t the SPLC on this guy like white on rice?

Anti-semitism has an answer for these questions. But I’m open to others. Are there any?

Is simple criticism of Jews anti-semitism? Most people who use the word seem to think so. Is my belief that Jews as a group are partly responsible for the predicament of Whites as a group anti-semitism? Probably. How about my statement “Jews are my enemy”? Literally. Because I made this blunt statement am I therefore an anti-semite for the rest of my life? Will I be forgiven if I recant and grovel for forgiveness? Well I’m not going to.

I strongly suspect I’m just wasting space even discussing anti-semitism. That’s the whole idea, isn’t it? Just as the person who cries racism hopes you’ll derail yourself with apologia so does the person who cries anti-semitism. In response to extended protestations a critic can even accuse you of protesting too much, just as Auster does to Buchanan.

Well however you want to define anti-semitism I’m no longer afraid of that or any other slur, at least not from strangers who don’t know me. First and foremost this is because I fear more for the future of my family and extended family. My race is not threatened by some past genocide, or some hypothetical future genocide. Due to PC and mass immigration my race is in the process of being genocided right now. So go ahead, call me or people I think are telling the truth whatever nasty names you want. It won’t change my opinion. If anything it makes me more than a little suspicious of your guilty heart. Which brings me to my other reason. I know my own heart and I know it’s true. If the interests of myself and my kin conflict with you and yours I’m willing to try and work it out in plain language out in the open. If you’re not willing to do that then there’s going to be a problem, because I’m not going to just slink off silently and die. You’re going to have to stick me in prison or come right out and kill me.

One of the annoying things about finally getting up the nerve to point out the elephant in the room is the odd responses you get from those who previously took no notice of it. “What’s the big deal?” “What are you obsessed with elephants?” No, I’m not obsessed with Jews, and I don’t think they are to blame for everything. But I no longer consider explanations of what’s going on in our world, or plans of how to deal with it, to be complete without talking about Jews. They’re too successful and powerful to simply ignore.

Until recently I was so thoroughly blinded by PC that I not only never mentioned Jews, I actually did ignore them. Then I read this paper by Kevin MacDonald and caught what John Derbyshire calls the Jew thing. For me the Jew thing works alot like Rowdy Roddy Piper’s glasses worked in They Live. It allows me to see things people like Derbyshire apparently cannot see. Derb, in professing his willful blindness, comes off sounding like Sergeant Schultz. I assume he considers that preferable to being branded an anti-semite.

You may be wondering what anti-semitism has to do with Mencius Moldbug, the fellow I started out talking about. As I alluded above what caught my eye at his blog was that he seems to see the same kind of rottenness in the government and media that I do. Unlike me he actually proposes solutions. MM thinks big. He seems to understand pretty well how the world works, and I’m not ashamed to admit his view is deeper and more comprehensive than mine.

Perhaps I’ll write in more detail about it later, but I’m out of juice for now. Go read my comments at MM’s blog if you really care. I’m pretty sure this essay is where I first got critical of his description of the workings of the world. Work forward in time from there.

In a nutshell I object to MM’s definition of Universalism, which is what he calls "the faith of our ruling caste". It’s an important observation, but I think he gets it only half right. He associates Universalism only with Progressivism, which he blames entirely on Christianity. He does not address the Globalist tendencies of our ruling caste, and he pretty much gives Jews a pass. To the extent they’re involved at all he thinks they were “assimilated”, tricked by wily Christians into being liberals. On anti-semitism he prefers Derbyshire over MacDonald. His position on Jewish involvement in world affairs is that he doesn’t see it. I found MM’s understanding and defense of White nationalism notably even-handed for someone who ultimately disavows the idea, but I think he dismisses it and anti-semitism too blithely.

MM makes no mention of Jew’s favor for and favoritism under PC. No connection of that to PC intolerance for White nationalism. He notes how Hilter evokes “red flags” but Stalin doesn’t. Perhaps if he could imagine for just a moment that he had the Jew thing he might see some link. The close alignment of PC with Jewish interests? The Jewish support for Marxism and Bolshevism and hatred of Nazism perhaps? Nope. He doesn’t recognize the MSM signals that encourage us all to see Jews as poor defenseless victims and White nationalists as evil wannabe thugs. He does however clearly see how White nationalism is connected to anti-semitism via Hitler. He even suspects it might be too clear. His examination of that link is fairly nuanced, but he examines only that link and it is an entirely one-way perspective. No mention of the historically lopsided Jewish support for open borders, or how it predates Hitler. Jews fear White nationalism because it produced a Hitler and it might produce another. MM doesn’t acknowledge much less express any sympathy for the fact that anti-semitism has arisen many times in many different places besides Nazi Germany and so perhaps anti-semitic White nationalists might have a legitimate reason to fear Jews or consider them enemies. Nope, MM concludes, anti-semites fear that which does not exist, therefore they are evil.

And here I thought anti-semites were supposed to make the demented arguments.

The cartoon is Pearls before Swine, dated November 9, 2007.

UPDATE 26 Nov 2007: Here is Old Atlantic’s take on what it means to be called a White nationalist. I agree with him. To your typical PC-drone the label is essentially a slur that is reflexively escalated into White supremacist. Such labels are intended to dehumanize us, to put it in the hallowed terms of the worshippers of tolerance and diversity. They do to us what they claim they deplore. As OA points out, our governments have officially slated us subhumans for extinction. So why should any of us go quietly?

UPDATE 30 Nov 2007: Mencius links here and mocks what he sees: The Jewish question and other links. He believes the true test for a sane worldview is to explain the “Altalena affair”. I have my own test. Explain the immigration invasion. Mencius, so far, fails.