"Why I am not a white nationalist"

This article is part of a larger effort to discuss a certain fashionable blog. The effort is introduced in Mencius Moldbug, adnotated. The original quoted here lives as Why I am not a white nationalist.

Before proceeding with this it behooves me I suppose to clarify, notwithstanding being a Gypsyⁱ and a Jewⁱⁱ, whether I myself am a white nationalistⁱⁱⁱ. Well... I myself am a Nigger^iv, but in the spirit of universal brotherhood of man promoted by sister Eleanor Roosevelt^v I wish my fellow White Nationalists all the best of luck they could possibly want, plus one bag of complimentary chips.

The funny stuff aside, it bears repeating that dorky dudes with overactive imaginations and atrophied agency are perhaps a tad too preocupied by label and appartenance, especially to imaginary classes. In this line, I am not a "White Nationalist", I'm a dude that kills with his own hands and keeps slaves. Does that make me a "White Nationalist", whatever it may mean ? More importantly, why would I and why should I care what it "makes" me ? Why do you think it's important at all ? Why do you care ? Why not just be whatever the hell you're going to and let people sort out what it's called long after you're dead, like normal fucking people have been doing forever ? This Internet Meta Disease is geting ridiculous.

The important stuff aside, it bears pointing out that "white nationalism" is a broken concept. There is no such thing as a "white nation" any more than there's an Ant Empire. Sure, for the casual human observer all ants are pretty much the same, and consequently they may just be swept into some sort of grandiose Planet of Hats arrangement. This is a defect of the casual human observer, a failure of his observational process reflected in a poor quality observation. It is not factual, it's not something of the ants. Squarely in your head.

Just so, a plurality of white nations actually exist. Romania is in no way reducible to Poland, for very good reasons clearly established long before the United States were even invented, back when the lowly, socially maladjusted, empoverished and tired^vi grandfathers of current day USites were eating shit in the mud scattered across lower Silesia. England is not France, Scotland is not England, the Walloons and the Vlamingen are quite distinct nationally even if they (mostly) live together in the kingdom of Belgium. Some square jawed highschoolers somewhere in Iowa donning a bunch of bedsheets and imagining that thereby they're now epoch-accurate Anthonys and Cleopatras while chewing gum and tipping hats have no measurable impact on the classical antiquity, and similarly the general ignorance of the US inhabitant as to the much larger, much more complex and ultimately much more interesting world outside of the dank alley they were born in does not change anything of the world. At most it changes their very own chances, perspectives and horizon.

I can appreciate that it'd be a very cheap and extremely easy solution to a pressing problem if all these married women forgot they were already married and just played along, my dear allegorical US teenager. Nevertheless, the pressing problem is your own and the ladies are in fact married. Besides, cheapness isn't always a quality. Go forth in the world, my dear allegorical US teenager, and find your destiny, create your fate and become a fucking nation already if that's what you're after.

That should about cover it. Let's proceed to the article.

I am not a white nationalist. However, judging by the comments on the Ian Smith elegy^vii, some of my readers are. For this week, I was going to put up another post in the Dawkins series, but Thanksgiving is coming and traffic should be light, so I thought it might be fun to wade into this wretched hive of scum and villainy.

Fair enough.

I am not a white nationalist, but I do read white-nationalist blogs, and I'm not afraid to link to them. The undisputed champion in this department is Larry Auster. I am also fond of Vanishing American, John Savage, New Sisyphus, Age of Treason, and Old Atlantic Lighthouse. The two central organs of intellectual white nationalism in the US are American Renaissance and VDare. If there is a European equivalent, it is probably Brussels Journal. On all these sites, you'll find thoughtful, well-written commentary that will expand your mind. I'm not sure all these writers would accept the white-nationalist label - this is just my own description.

I've never read any of these, so I have no idea whether they're even worth the mention. I guess this is the downside to having some dubious character over for a chat : he tends to bring a slate of friends.

(The Internet is also home to many out-and-out racist blogs. Most are simply unreadable. But some are hosted by relatively capable writers, such as "The Uhuru Guru" or "Big Effer." On these racist blogs you'll find racial epithets, anti-Semitism (see why I am not an anti-Semite) and the like. Obviously, I cannot recommend any of these blogs, and nor will I link to them. However, if you are interested in the mind of the modern racist, Google will get you there.)

Interesting position that puts me in, huh. I suppose I should have said something like "since I've never read any of these I'm not about to link to them, go Google yourself". I guess I'm just promiscuous. What's in a link ?

What is white nationalism, anyway? I'd say a white nationalist is someone who believes that whites should act collectively to further their collective interests. Much as, say, a French nationalist believes that Frenchmen should act collectively etc.

This isn't by any means the first time Mencius Moldbug writes from a purely socialist perspective, to the degree I'm starting to think that the main problem with him is that he is, fundamentally, a socialist. The notion that problems of the individual will have solutions provided by the group is the best definition of socialism there is, and as such a white national-socialist would perhaps be he who believes that whites should act collectively to further their collective interests, much as a German national-socialist did in fact believe that Germans should act collectively to further their collective, specifically German, interests.

French nationalism has very little to do with German nazism, for that matter, and is intellectually as well as historically distinct and quite distinguishable from French socialism, even if they came to the political fore at about the same time in the late 1700s and even if to the aforementioned bedsheet-clad highschooler they may well appear as reducible to yet another Planet of Hats^viii.

It is nontrivial to define the word "white." It is also nontrivial to define the word "French." However, "nationalist" seems pretty clear. Note that its root is the Latin natus, birth - the association between "nation" and State is not universal. In the Soviet Union, a Soviet citizen might be of Russian, Jewish, Kazakh, etc, nationality. The Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires were thoroughly multinational governments, and the former categorized its citizens by a credal concept of nationality with no place at all for geographism.

I will proceed to leave a white space below, in an attempt to do my part in the grand effort of defining "white" :

>

So now there. Obviously "white" in the sense of skin colour is not in any way related to skin colour, but merely a cultural construct. Thus it's not a matter of white being hard to define, but moreover a matter of definitions having absolutely nothing to do with anyone's being white.^ix You don't get to be white by meeting some sort of universal and mandatory definition, perhaps against the objections of others. This isn't a case of a computer geek forcing his way into whatever situation or status through satisfying objective criteria, this is a case of dating. Defining romance and its attendant concepts is equally "difficult", specifically for the same reason : definitions have nothing to do.

You know how there's a school of weird people that are busy trying to turn flirting into a technology, a matter of following recipes and using tools ? That's about the same... naive, let's say^x approach.

Other than that, "nationalist" is about as clear as universalist in the previous installment.

This is rather academic. Another approach is to say that white nationalism is what people who call themselves "white nationalists" believe. John Savage has a good link summary, featuring a friendly debate between Steve Sailer (who is perhaps best classified as a Sailerist, a label I'm not at all afraid to stick on my shirt) and the editor of American Renaissance, Jared Taylor.

If that's what "rather academic" looks like, there's no wonder Anglo-American Academia is currently indistinguishable from any old sewing circle. Nice tea cozies.

(It's also worth mentioning the still-ongoing LGF versus Brussels Journal food fight. Since I am neither a neocon nor a paleocon nor a conservative at all, I feel no need to take a side. In my opinion, both are right and both are wrong. Hopefully, by the end of this essay, my take should be obvious.)

I guess by the end of this essay, I will have linked to the entire Internet.

Perhaps the best summary of the white nationalist case I've seen, however, is this essay by the Norwegian blogger known only as Fjordman. Fjordman is not a terribly eloquent wordsmith - at least, not in English - but he has a lot to say, and the essay is worth reading. (If you are interested in a weird, overheated '70s novelization of the same issues, you might enjoy the Great Racist Novel, Jean Raspail's appalling Camp of the Saints.)

For what it's worth, Moldbug himself isn't either terribly eloquent or any sort of wordsmith, at all. "At least not in English", I guess, although going by the remarkably narrow and uninformed perspective he regularly applies it'd be shocking he mastered any other languages. I did bother to click on the link, being greeted by the following paragraph :

Imagine if you planned a country’s economic future using calculations exclusively based on even numbers. For ideological reasons you excluded odd numbers because you declared that they represent bigotry and have divisive nature since they cannot be divided equally in half. Absolutely all calculations for the future would then end up being wrong.

I suppose this dumbfoundingly narrow approach is the - perhaps unintentional - icon of "white nationalism". To anyone even vaguely familiar with computers as a theoretical construct, the proposition to do math using nothing but even numbers - for whatever reason - is practically a proposition to use 7 instead of 8 bit registers, always ignoring the lowest bit. Why ? Who knows, maybe you have a piece of hardware with a bad wire in it, but fact remains it's trivial to shift everything one bit, and no, none of the calculations would end up being wrong. You'd be stuck with a maxint of 32k instead of the god given 65535 which should be enough for everyone and that'd be the limit of the inconvenience. Why is this supposed to be a big deal, again ?

Ah, because a bunch of people much prefer to do a lot of dreaming instead of a little bit of learning, and then get all aggitated and defensive if anyone points this out ? O well.

It should be obvious that, although I am not a white nationalist, I am not exactly allergic to the stuff. Maybe this doesn't need defending. But I feel the urge to defend it anyway.

One (tangential) comment on the Smith elegy used the phrase "red flags." While I hate to strike the as-I-was pose - I have no idea who the commenter is, or why he or she feels this way - I have a pretty good memory of when I might have said the same thing. The first time I was linked to VDare, I had exactly this response. (In fact, the first time I found myself staring at a Republican blog, I had this response. But that was a longer time ago.)

I took the trouble to disentangle the "as-I-was" pose thing. There's so little complexity, subtext and reference going on in these lengthy flats I was almost happy to see a little tension in the phrase. It goes something like this : As I was going to St. Ives, I met a man with seven wives. Each wife had seven sacks, each sack had seven cats, each cat had seven kits. Kits, cats, sacks, and wives, how many were there going to St. Ives?^xi

The sensation is visceral. It is the sense of the presence of evil - of the Adversary himself. I am not religious, but I do believe in evil. It is impossible to fight without believing one's enemies are, in some way, evil. To believe one can be above this feeling of pure revulsion and contempt is not to have advanced to a higher spiritual stage, but to be an arrogant prig.

This leaves me wondering if the man actually has any viscera. Seriously, that's what the presence of "the Adversary" is like ? Let me show you a much better version :

That, my dear child, is my good friend Mr. Adult Male. The next words out of his mouth are "Well... he won't be 16." That is your adversary. And he'll have your ass.

However, without denying the concept of evil, we can investigate our own use of it.

How does one deny a concept ? Here's a concept : the anal conception. Suppose a fairy by the name of Mary smoked some grass and took it up the ass and nine months later he was a mater. Now go ahead and deny it.

What's to deny ? You could deny the factuality of it, perhaps showing that either Mary was not gay, or not into pot, or not even called Mary in the first place. Maybe you could show that no matter how many babies men put into another man's anus, no offspring shall ever issue forth from there.^xii Fine, so it's not a factual. It's still a concept. You could deny its coherence, maybe, showing that bits of it logically contradict other bits of it, like perhaps "funny" contradicts "romantic" in that "I want a funny, romantic guy" concept. So what if it's incoherent ? It's still a concept. You could perhaps propose that it's obscene, or vile, or banal, or in some other manner not a concept that interests "us". Perhaps that may even be the case, but even so the concept hasn't been denied, we've just agreed to ignore it. Because that's the one and only blessing of concepts : they're forever, intractable. Permanent. They're concepts.

As to evil, evil is roughly speaking the color pink. A sufficient blow to the head, particular radiation interference or a certain chemical cocktail can produce in the observer the impression of the color pink, provided they're of one of the tribes that uses that concept. Nevertheless, the phenomena so described are and remain mechanical, electromagnetic and ionic interaction. They're not "pink" in any way, nor could they ever be. While it could be said that a taste for colorature is an attribute of the civilised man, it could equally be said that nobody asked the civilised man anything.

Why does white nationalism strike us as evil? Because Hitler was a white nationalist, and Hitler was evil. Neither of these statements is remotely controvertible. There is exactly one degree of separation between white nationalism and evil. And that degree is Hitler. Let me repeat: Hitler.

No, actually. Hitler was a German national-socialist. Not "white", and this is not merely a distinction without difference : in Hitler's own estimation various peoples such as the perfectly white Central Europeans, as well as the various people of the Caucasus (whence, after all, the name comes from), as well as the perfectly white French, or English weren't "white". Which is why they even invented the notion of Aryan : the concept of "white" didn't work for them). Not merely and not centrally national, either. "National" figures in nazi about in the manner it figured in the line-up for Romania's first elections after the overthrow of the most recent Russian yoke : there were the National-Liberal Party, the National Peasant's Party and the National Front for National Salvation or somesuch. The same process was at work in the US a century earlier, the Constitutional-this and Constitutional-that, the Democratic-this and Democratic-the-other and so forth.

The only intelectually honest approach for classifying the nazi regime in Germany is as yet another version of socialism. Hitler's pretense to nationalism is about as well supported in fact as Stalin's pretense to internationalism^xiii, and his deep and frothy rejection of individualism and even individuals unites Hitler's socialism to Mao's socialism and Stalin's socialism far above and beyond the teeth of any factual or conceivable personal differences between the respective nuts.

So yes, the lessons of history are that socialism is always and in all places a bad idea. This has relatively little to do with nationalism, or white people, or Germans.

As to the matter of evil, Hitler is not a national hero in Germany strictly because Germany was an invaded country at the end of the war, and the victors may misrepresent history into anything they wish. Stalin is to this day a hero for many in the territory of the former Soviet Union, even if the state has long officially proscribed him. Conversely, Mao is to this day an official hero for the Chinese state, even if the populace has long proscribed him. Abdul Hamid II, the butcher of the Armenians is not particularly remembered today, even though the mass murder of over a million Armenians in the early 20th century reduced that otherwise noteworthy ethnic group to mostly a footnote in history^xiv. To put the matter another way, a woman walks into a police station to complain that she had been raped in an alley by six men, and the third was evil.

The argument seems watertight. (Hitlertight?) But it holds no water at all.

Why does socialism strike us as evil? Because Stalin was a socialist, and Stalin was evil. Anyone who wants to seriously argue that Stalin was less evil than Hitler has an awful long row to hoe. Not only did Stalin order more murders, his murder machine had its heyday in peacetime, whereas Hitler's can at least be seen as a war crime against enemy civilians. Whether this makes a difference can be debated, but if it does it puts Stalin on top.

Any discussion of Stalin's warcrimes that fails to begin with Katyn is broken by that very fact. But let's move on, the comparison of flavours of socialism in terms of their headcount is too much akin a discussion of flavours of cancer.

And yet I have never had or seen anything like the "red flags" response to socialism. If I saw a crowd of young, fashionable people lining up at the box office for a hagiographic biopic on Reinhard Heydrich, chills would run up and down my neck. For Ernesto Guevara, I have no emotional response. Perhaps I think it's stupid and sad. I do think it's stupid and sad. But it doesn't freak me out.

Some friends of mine live on a street in Brooklyn where there is a Black Muslim storefront with TVs in the window, broadcasting Louis Farrakhan's Jew-hating black nationalism 24/7. To get from their compound to the subway, you need to go past a little taste of Rev. Louis. Should this freak me out? Should I see "red flags?"

Maybe I should. But I don't. And to make a conscious effort to change this would put me in the odd position of cultivating hatred. When I ask myself what Albert Jay Nock would do, somehow this doesn't seem quite the answer.

Well, the explanation would be that you're a socialist. I do have and I do see such things as a red flags response to socialism, but this may be a function of my living with and among people who aren't socialists, and moreover who know and understand what's wrong with socialism.

If you consciously endorse the method of guilt by association that makes any conceivable connection to Nazism taboo, you base this endorsement on moral grounds, and you believe in uniform moral standards, you have to apply the same method to Communism as well. Which means you must adopt a level of fanatical McCarthyism that would make Roy Cohn blush. While the result may be logically consistent, does it serve your interests? Or anyone else's?

The "puritan", let's call it that, approach to life and everything else is not logically consistent in the first place. Dutifully avoiding the faintest hint of the word nigger does not save one from being a racist, never speaking of medicine does not relieve one of hypochondria, never touching the cock or having the lord's name with dessert does not guarantee a seat in the Heavenly Pews and so on. Tabooization of any topic, such as nazism, or communism, or anything else fares no better. And for that matter, here's an erect penis with precum dribbling :

So my conclusion is that the only way to restore balance and perspective, and escape from the Blank Slate Asymmetry, is to suppress the little voice in my head that pops up and says "Hitler! Hitler! Hitler!" Your mileage, as usual, may vary.

You could also kiss the penis...

So this is one reason not to not be a white nationalist. There are a few such. And I feel I ought to work through them all, before explaining why I am actually not a white nationalist.

A slightly more sophisticated version of the Hitler argument is to argue that white nationalism is evil not because of what white nationalists did in the past, but because of what they might do in the future. In other words, the problem with white nationalism is that it is dangerous.

This is true in a certain sense. But it demonstrates a rather staggering failure of proportion.

Cute little bunnies are dangerous. They could hop onto your face while you sleep, and smother you. I'm sure human history records at least one death by bunny attack. And even if it doesn't, there's always a first.

It makes no sense to evaluate danger on an absolute scale. One must compare. Cute little bunnies pose a nonzero threat. They are certainly not as dangerous as leopards.

That's a particularly bizarre way to bring the argument. I would have pointed out that anything which can't possibly harm by that very fact can't possibly help anything, and indeed proposing to limit human agency to only that which can provably not harm is to enforce the ridiculous US impotence upon everyone. Which would be I suppose again a very cheap and extremely easy solution to a pressing problem of a certain teenager. If all the other people would agree to cease being adults and doing adult things, his neoteny would perhaps become the norm in which case he would cease having to make that scary, frightful and perhaps even dangerous!!! trip across the gap and into maturity.

Things still don't work that way. Moreover, living among people who can't break the law is living in prison.

So what makes white nationalists so dangerous? How many Americans are killed by white nationalists every year? More than by cute little bunnies, I'm sure. More than [by] cougars? Maybe. More than [by] bees ? Certainly not.

Danger and death aren't particularly related however. For instance, nobody is ever killed by AIDS.^xv

On the other hand, cougars and bees can't seize power and establish a genocidal totalitarian state. Whereas white nationalists could.

So could anyone else. This is a function of overstretched government, not of whoever is in charge of it. The best defense against a genocidal totalitarian state is ensuring that the state is relatively small and relatively powerless, through for instance making it a constitutional rule that the government may not employ more than 1% of the population in any manner, nor may it expend more than 1% of the GDP through any means. That'd fix the problem of genocidal, totalitarian states irrespective if they be run by Pol Pot or even Obama himself.

But so could black nationalists, Mexican nationalists, white environmentalists, anarchists, animal-rights activists, etc, etc. (Watch the movie Your Mommy Kills Animals sometime. It really does take a lot to send chills down my spine, but Kevin Kjonaas^xvi did it. The animal-rights people have a marvelous moral rationale for violence and even murder, and damned if they don't use it.)

Yeah, the animal rights people certainly need more watching, they're probably the most dangerous fringe of current socialism.

The thing about all the ideologies on this random little list is that every single one is fashionable. No one is expelled from polite society for holding them. Au contraire. In many chic contexts, they are actually social lubricants. They certainly attract talented and ambitious young people, which is pretty much a necessity if you want to seize any kind of power.

There are entire departments at every university in the US which teach black and Mexican nationalism - not to mention the other three. A few blocks from where I live, on one of the most fashionable shopping streets in the entire world, there is an anarchist bookstore. Its window is full of books advocating violence, tyranny and terror of every kind. Etc, etc.

This was perhaps factual in the 70s to 80s at the top and perhaps as late as the mid 2000s in the lame middle class. As far as I see, they're all vastly unfashionable today. Perhaps this disagreement is a function of social circle, but as best as I can determine the only society in which said ideologies still work as social lubricants would be the employee break room at a campus Kinkos or somesuch.

And Nazism too was fashionable. Indeed it was profoundly self-righteous. Perhaps the easiest way for a modern American or European to understand Nazism is to understand that a good Brown thought about preserving the Deutsche Volk in exactly the same way that today's Greens think about preserving the Environment. (Not, indeed, without some overlap.) In a world where this book is a bestseller, who is the leopard and who the bunny-rabbit?

Nazism certainly was fashionable, and for that matter nazism was intellectually productive, originally (and so was soviet socialism). Utopianism is not unlike taking drugs : at first everything seems to work well, then everything "inexplicably" goes to shit.

Come to think of it, this is a pretty powerful idea. Consider, nazi socialism as a sort of heroin, dark and anesthetic and certainly chthonic, promising a great Ragnarok ; soviet socialism as a sort of cocaine, ruining erections, bringing about bankruptcy and a psychotic suspicion of bugs crawling everywhere ; green socialism a sort of acid trip, colourful and agitated and ultimately meaningless ; Chinese socialism a sort of khat, not giving any sort of subjective effect since decades ago but continuing to extract its tithe each day. Not bad, huh ? It certainly explains why the adolescent peoples just can't stop binging on the stuff.

White nationalism is the most marginalized and socially excluded belief system in the history of the world. It is an obnoxious social irritant in any circle which does not include tattooed speedfreak bikers. The idea that a white-nationalist conspiracy is lurking behind the curtain, ready to seize power in one terrible spring, really does make anti-Semitism look plausible. What's next, the KKK and Snapple? The Protocols of the Elders of Idaho?

Again with the "two decades of US history = the history of the world" bullshit. White supremacy is the premier belief system of muslim, socialistoid Egypt, I shall have you know, in the sense that the one time I visited a local coptic church they insisted I go further in because I'm much too white to stay in the back with all the dark people! White nationalism rules to this day most of Africa, and most of India, and all of Russia, and most of Europe^xvii and definitely South America. This, today. A hundred years ago ? Or two ? Or five ? White supremacy has always been and to this day remains the axis mundi as far as politics is concerned. This situation is not likely to change, irrespective of what the wailing teenagers in that one colony of ours keep representing to themselves. It's the Chinese that are wearing suits and ties^xviii, not the Europeans wearing those long girly robe thingees whatever they're called.

So we see that, at present, in the real world of 2007, there is no coherent moral or practical reason to shun white nationalism.

Or is there? I can imagine one possibility which might make white nationalism genuinely dangerous. White nationalism would be dangerous if there was some issue on which white nationalists were right, and everyone else was wrong. Truth is always dangerous. Contrary to common belief, it does not always prevail. But it's always a bad idea to turn your back on it.

Here at last is our leopard. But could this be a reason to shun and ignore white nationalism? It is precisely the opposite. It is (or would be) a reason to investigate and understand it.

By now this construction is so implausible and contrived it may no longer stand on its own. In what manner would a nonsensical concept "be right" where "everyone else was wrong" ? Is this to be construed to mean that people who identify as "white nationalists", notwithstanding the difficulty of "defining" "white" nor the general meaninglessness of "nationalism" in that context would figure out something that all the others ignored and then that something would somehow be used or employed in a manner coherent with the incoherent label they don't use to indentify themselves anyway ?! There are simpler ways to jack off, you know.

Say hello to the very courageous William Saletan. Mr. Saletan, following Amy Harmon, believes there is indeed a leopard. The leopard's name is human cognitive biodiversity. While the evidence for human cognitive biodiversity is indeed debatable, what's not debatable is that it is debatable. Since it's also the case that everyone who is not a white nationalist has spent the last 50 years informing us that it is not debatable, we have our leopard one way or another.

This spectacularly failed to make any sense whatsoever. Following the link to that scary place which six years ago was going to eat babies, we discover

I’m not sure how much drive-by traffic gnxp is continuing to receive, but figured it worthwhile to post a note about my latest working paper, which explores whether male signalling may have a role in driving economic progress. The abstract:

Sexual Selection, Conspicuous Consumption and Economic Growth

The evolution by sexual selection of the male propensity to engage in conspicuous consumption contributed to the emergence of modern rates of economic growth. We develop a model in which males engage in conspicuous consumption to send an honest signal of their quality to females. Males who engage in conspicuous consumption have higher reproductive success than those who do not, as females respond to the costly and honest signal, increasing the prevalence of signalling males in the population over time. As males fund conspicuous consumption through participation in the labour force, the increase in the prevalence of signalling males who engage in conspicuous consumption gives rise to an increase in economic activity that leads to economic growth.

So this is it, a meanwhile dead personal blog upon which the meanwhile-gone-to-college sweetheart of yesteryear publishes studies of the most painful banal ? Who knew that dudes get expensive cars to get a better pick at the population of teenage cocksuckers that specialise in car detail. I shudder in fear at what other cracks to the dome of the world may come from diligent application of the scientific talents of people producing these alarming results. Seriously now...

If you don't want Mr. Saletan and Ms. Harmon's courage to go unrewarded, perhaps you should consider reporting Slate and the New York Times to the SPLC Intelligence Project. Contact them using this form. You could also try the NAACP. After all, what fun is it to stick your neck out, if no one tries to cut it off? Can't you always tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back?

Mr. Saletan seems to genuinely believe that an admission of honest error, and a few nice noises about the future, can extract the entire system of power and privilege he represents from the remarkable corner it's painted itself into.

Unfortunately, the obscure doctrinal point on which he is admitting error is the most fundamental belief of his society. It is the political mortar of the postwar Western world. It can no more be admitted than the Soviets could admit that capitalism was the best thing for the working class after all. (I'm still not quite sure how the Chinese get away with this.)

Slate is not about to link to Alexander Stephens, Charles Francis Adams, or Carleton Putnam. But I just did. And talented and ambitious young people - especially if they've just had to sit through a diversity struggle session - know how to click. The leopard is real.

I fear the leopard is lost. Maybe it comes back again, in the shape of obscure webpages that survive a few years and go away in turn. Infinite hitpoints, after all.

Of course, I am not a white nationalist. I am not arguing that you should be a white nationalist. I am just suggesting that there are many bad reasons not to be a white nationalist.

And there is one more. You could not be a white nationalist because you believed that the problems white nationalists worry about are not serious or important.

This is just a hoot. Suppose you are an alien and you are observing a country X which contains two classes of people, which we'll call A and B. You observe the following:

Every year, thousands of people of class B are attacked, raped and killed by people of class A. The converse is extremely rare - at least, rare enough to be a cause celebre. (BTW, I love the argument that class-A people attack, rape and kill other class-A people as well. As though this were some great saving grace.)

Large areas of X, including entire major cities, have been ethnically cleansed by the departure of class-B people fleeing class-A violence.

Versus class-As, class-Bs are systematically disfavored in competition for educational and professional positions.

Many, even most, people of class A accept a canonical ideology which justifies this situation as a moral response to unidentifiable, irreparable, and ancient wrongs, and appears to motivate ongoing attacks, which are often defended by responsible authorities. In fact, the belief that it is actually the class-Bs who are oppressing the class-As is widespread.

While class-Bs are a numerical majority in some regions, they are a substantial minority on the entire planet. Many respectable and influential people advocate the abolition of all migration controls worldwide, leaving the class-As in a perfect position to extend their theory of violence to a policy of global conquest and destruction. While this is not about to happen tomorrow, over the next century it is quite plausible.

Now. Would you, as a responsible alien obeying all directives for diplomatic communication with primitive planets, suggest to the class-Bs that there was some other problem that they should be worrying about instead? Something more important? Something even scarier? Such as, oh, I don't know, unusually warm weather?

Behold the massive crack infusion flowing into your arm. (Or at least trying to. Remember, kids, you can always just pull the needle out.)

There's a number of factual problems here. For one thing, the most recent (2010) US census shows white population at a solid 75%. The black population is a vanishing tenth (12% to be accurate). The largest minority in the US, after the white majority, are not blacks but hispanics, with something like 16%.

This situation, incidentally, is not novel nor some sort of US peculiarity. Romania contains about 89% ethnic Romanians, about 6% ethnic Hungarians^xix and about 3% ethnic Gypsies. The underground-mainstream^xx rhetoric of the day is, and has been for at least twenty years, all about how that second minority is assaulting (violently!!!) the peaceful majority, and about how it shall breed it out of existence, and about how the mostly desperate efforts on the part of the technical experts working for successive governments of all political colours to alleviate the quite concrete burden and squalor of the daily life of that minority are nothing short of treason. And yes a kid born in a Gypsy family has statistically poorer chances than a kid born in a Romanian family, but yes statistics are statistics and people are people. And yes Gypsies make a disproportionate chunk of petty crime, but yes they have a lot of trouble going to and staying in school. And on and on.

Pretty much every single thing you know about these problems finds its equivalent. The entire thing has nothing to do with race, as the distinctions between racially white Romanians and racially white Hungarians are purely and absolutely cultural and in no way racial ; for that matter the racial distinction between the average Romanian and the average Gypsy are difficult enough to make^xxi. The entire thing simply has to do with the political dynamics in a large majority + 2 minorities situation. The boogey man behaviour, if you wish.^xxii

For another thing, white people are no sort of minority in the world. There's about half a billion of them in Europe, there's about three hundred million or so in North America, there's a good quarter billion scattered in and around Russia, there's a good chunk in Latin America and in the Arabic Peninsula and in Africa and everywhere else. There's easily over a billion of us, probably not quite two but perhaps as many as a billion and a half. There's not really that many black people, and at the rate Africa is going there really won't be. Ever.^xxiii

For yet another thing, this entire "opening the borders" nonsense... Spanish women don't seem to have lost much appeal through getting gangbanged by Moors for a few generations a few centuries back. Human skin has this blessed property of being washable, should you not be too fond of its previous user.

Finally, urban decay happens as the flows of trade change. History is full of stories of sanded ports and sad, deserted gardens of once mighty hubs. It's a motif of Persian poetry, for crying out loud. Take a stroll down Hansa avenue, from Konigsberg to Lubeck. Claiming Detroit went to shit because of black people is about as disingenuous as allotting a moon eclipse to someone's farting. The Japanese just made better cars cheaper, that's all there is to it.

And as to the "crime" angle, the question before each and everyone is, "how many criminals have you shot in the act". If the answer is zero, you're not one of the people discussing crime, you're one of the people aspiring to be on TV. Get a gun, learn how to use it, shoot whoever attacks you and there you go, complete solution for the actual problem. What's next, hanging around the tolerant Internets whining about how these whores of women prefer forward men who actually say something instead of gazing through your weird garb and repugnant affectation to see deep into your soul all about how you'd love her and cherish her ? The world belongs to the active, not to the thoughtful.

So why am I not a white nationalist?

I am not a white nationalist because I don't find white nationalism useful or effective. I don't feel it helps me accurately perceive reality. In fact, I think it distorts reality. And I believe white nationalism is a very ineffective political device for solving the very real problems about which it complains.

This is perhaps the worst part of this article. The author proceeds through thousands of words of ever decaying nonsense, then suddenly makes some factually correct proclamations, at odds with his previous train of throught. Well dorky... how did you get to these ? "Feeling" ? What's that! Wouldn't it have been a better use of the Interwebs and my time to have dedicated the foregoing to illustrating this rather than whatever you did ? And hear ye, who aspire to write blogs yourselves. Think of this, should MP later read this piece I've just written, is he liable to go, "well dorky..." ? It's a situation best avoided, I say.

If you haven't read the Fjordman piece I linked above, now would be an excellent time to do so. (Yes, the site loads very slowly.) Now, compare Fjordman's white-nationalist analysis of this problem to mine.

In Fjordman's model, we see two groups: White and Swarthy. White people, or at least some of them, are gripped by some mysterious masochistic urge to self-destruction. If Whites unite, accept even just the slightest touch of White nationalism, and act collectively, they can defeat the anti-White neo-Communist Swarthy jihad that otherwise threatens to devour them all.

In my model, there are not two sides but five. Three of these sides are white, two are swarthy. And we see no mysterious masochism at all, just the usual hominid struggle for factional dominance. One of the white parties (Brahmin) is ganging up with the two swarthy parties (Dalit, Helot) to apply a good old-fashioned whupping to the other two white parties (Vaisya, Optimate). Just another afternoon of nasty on the History Channel.

Not only does my model clarify the reality, it clarifies the tactical options. We see immediately that Fjordman is asking the impossible. His solution is simply for the B faction to dump its DH allies and unite with its OV victims. The lion will lie down with the lamb. Yeah, right! Perhaps Fjordman could be so kind as to inform us of the last occasion on which this worked.

I suppose this could be a working model, under the reservation that having not read the piece where the entire thing is supposedly introduced, I have no idea if it holds any more water than we're accustomed to seeing from this particular author.

Now, it's certainly likely that if the BDH alliance triumphs entirely and manages to wipe out all remnants of the OVs, the DHes will just have the Bs for breakfast.

Why ?

Judith Todd could tell you all about it. But has she recanted? Not even. By and large, the Brahmins are absolutely sincere. And since they are the ruling class, their ability to ignore reality is almost unlimited.

And, more to the point, what is the one ideology least likely to convince them to change their nefarious ways? What is the system of thought that Brahmins are most powerfully in[n]oculated against? White nationalism! It's a strategy that couldn't be better designed to fail. It is almost eerie in its profound and incurable ineffectiveness.

Well I can absolutely certify the sort of goop I've been thrudging through so far is guaranteed to not get anyone to change anything. For one, it's mostly unreadable. For the other, it's by and large nonsensical and poorly constructed. As that particularly apt observation went, "it has good parts and original parts ; unfortunately the good parts aren't original, and the original parts aren't good".

Another way to put it would be to observe that this text is conceptually usable for an audience aged about nine or less. Formally however the processing of it requires an audience aged fifteen or over. It is in principle difficult to find people whose technical abilities are 15+ while their intellectual abilities remain firmly -9. I suppose computer geeks constitute the vast majority of that demographic.

There is another way to see white nationalism: as a strategy to motivate the OVs to rise up, cast aside their false consciousness, and throw off the Brahmin yoke.

If it's possible, this is an even worse idea than the lie-down-with-the-lion plan. What was the Second World War, if not an OV rebellion? Did it work? Even if it had worked, would it have been an improvement? Um...

That WW2 was some sort of "OV rebellion" is tenuous a proposition at best.

Some of the most fascinating phenomena of postwar history are the rare attempts at actual military defiance of Universalist rule. These include the OAS in Algeria, the AWB in South Africa, and of course the Rhodesian and old South African regimes. Possibly the American Patriot movement counts as well. All these efforts have one thing in common: they were all spectacular failures.

The OAS is typical. What happened with the OAS is that they actually believed the great lie of the last half-century: that an insurgent movement with popular support cannot be defeated. The OAS was made up of French soldiers who had fought against a real insurgency, the FLN, defeated it, and therefore believed they could play the same game only better.

Of course they got their asses kicked, because terrorist or guerrilla movements cannot succeed of their own accord. They are only effective auxiliaries to an internal political conflict within a conventional state. The OAS had some political support in France, but not much, and not nearly as much as the FLN. No one was inventing creative explanations as to why France should go easy on them, buy them off with concessions, open peace talks, etc, etc. So the OAS lost and the pieds-noirs were expelled from Algeria, in a sort of operatic, Mediterranean Operation Wetback. "Non... je ne regrette rien."

I won't bore you with the story of the AWB. It is far more sordid and pathetic. And no doubt, if the Rhodesians had actually resorted to armed resistance in 1980, they would have been crushed as well. Probably the same thing would have happened to the Afrikaners in time. It may seem to us that they had a real choice in 1994, but how long would that choice have lasted? They had been folding in slow motion ever since the assassination of Verwoerd.

The problem with white nationalism as a military or political strategy (of course there is no line between the two - if your goal is to capture the government, your goal is to capture the government) is that however much it may manage to fire up the OVs, it fires up the Brahmins ten times as much. Since the latter are the ruling class and hold the whip hand, white nationalism remains a losing strategy. Ouch! Taste the pain, kids.

I don't see any merit in this particular mishmash of cutouts of disparate historical events. I suppose there is after all a reason why sushi is prepared by specialist sushi chefs, Bitcoin stock exchanges are made by me rather than "the Bitcoin community" and historical summaries are produced by actual historians, who have been studying the respective field in systematic detail. The alternative, of having random MMs haphazardly throwing some bits together and then picking a label on the general aspect of the result ("I don't know if it's to be sushi or ground beef yet, we'll see how it comes out") isn't very appealing.

The only point I'll bother to raise is that insurgent movements with popular support were never presented as "indomitable" except by the very insurgents themselves. Otherwise, they're regarded as bad news and difficult, but if governments seriously believed they can never be vanquished Russia'd have abandoned Cecenia, the US wouldn't (still) be in Afghanistan and China would have long left Tibet.

See also the anti-Semitic species of white nationalism. While a blatant misperception of reality, it at least identifies the fact that not all white people are on the same side.

How the hell are Jews white people now ?! And if Jews are white people, then why aren't blacks white people ?!^xxiv

But, by describing its enemy as a basically-nonexistent ethnic-nationalist mafia, rather than a nontheistic Christian sect (which happens to have effectively assimilated many Reform Jews), anti-Semitism ensures that it can only score a hit by missing what it aims at. D'oh. And, needless to say, any remedies that anti-Semites may propose are, um, ineffective at best.

This is the trouble with white nationalism. It is strategically barren. It offers no effective political program. You can be as smart as you want and think about white nationalism forever, and you will not come up with any productive strategy for collective action, white or otherwise.

It's a strange thing, this propensity of the not-so-bright to spend not-so-long a time "thinking" about something, only to declare upon presentation of the shoddy results that "nobody could have done better". If there's one thing humanities teach the actually willing to learn student, it's exactly that yes, someone can always do better. Someone who isn't quite as stupid as you, someone who isn't quite as lazy as you can make a half stick of wet spaghetti into a capo d'opera. That's the very point (admittedly a difficult point to grok when you're lost in the retardation of socialism).

At its best, white nationalism offers a sensible description of a general problem. This problem certainly exists, and it falls under the larger category of bad government. (If allowing the old cities of North America to be overrun and rendered largely uninhabitable by murderous racist gangs isn't bad government, really, I'm not sure what is.)

The US has been blessed with horrible government, about on par with the Roman state^xxv. The statement presented is not particularly germane to the (numerous) issues, however. For that matter, it doesn't even seem to bear much relation to reality.

But white nationalism offers no formula at all for how to transition from bad government to good government. Indeed, to the extent that white nationalism succeeds in anything, it motivates its enemies, keeping everyone stuck in the same old destructive patterns.

Motivation and success are at best poorly correlated. Motivation and action are slightly better correlated. This is however not the whole story : if the opponent has to ride twelve miles for each mile we have to ride to achieve the same result, it matters not that every mile we ride motivates him to ride ten.

And the worst thing about white nationalism, in my opinion, is just that it's nationalism. Nationalism is really another word for democracy - the concept of democracy makes no sense except as an algorithm for determining the General Will of the People, that is, the Nation. And whatever its electoral formula or lack thereof, every nationalist government has seen itself as in some sense a representative of the Volk.

This is perhaps the stupidest thing I read all week. Most nations that exist today were born long before democracy was a thing.^xxvi Some of them thousands of years prior to democracy being a thing.^xxvii The relation between nationalism and democracy is roughly the relation between a Ford model T and the color red.

Compare this to the world of the ancien regime, in which French aristocrats had far more in common with Russian aristocrats than with French peasants. The world before nationalism and democracy was a world of mild wars, small and effective governments, personal freedom, and civilized high culture. Let architecture be the judge: all buildings from the 18th century are treasures. So are most from the 19th. The 20th was the age of nationalism, democracy, tyranny, mass murder, and gigantic concrete eyesores. (I live within walking distance of not one but two hospitals which are dead ringers for any Bulgarian secret-police headquarters. Although on reflection this is probably an insult to Bulgaria.)

Somebody has read something somewhere on wikipedia and understood but a little of it. By now I need a card with "not really, not exactly, not quite", it's becoming tiresome to keep typing it out.

Note that, before the coming of nationalist democracy, it was actually not a problem at all for wealthy, high-IQ people to live in the same society as poor, low-IQ people. It worked just fine. The latter served the former. They got paid. No one starved. If the mob wanted to riot, there were more than enough Swiss Guards to handle them. It was not Louis XVI's fictitious oppressions that doomed him to the implacable vengeance of the People, but his irresolution and gullibility that drew him to the deadly Anglo-American fad of popular government. (Try this history if you're unconvinced.)

On one hand, I had no problem living with poor, low-IQ US citizens in the US, exactly on the coordinates described : they served me, I paid them. Occasionally I had to point out to a cab driver to speak when spoken to or otherwise direct the comings and goings of the servile class, but this is universally true, I'd have had to do the same in 1713 Versailles. The notion that it's somehow difficult for the inferior to find their place in the world today strikes me as a little nutty. Maybe I don't hang out with enough US grad students that live with their parents or whatever.

On the other hand, the Swiss aren't quite as numerous, and regularly there weren't enough Guards to "handle" enraged peoples. Consider "Against the Murderous, Thieving Hordes of Peasants", does the author sound to you like he believed there's enough Swiss Guards ?

The task of restoring the old world is immense. It may not be solvable. It certainly demands the eradication of all present governing institutions, a fate they seem not at all inclined to acquiesce in. But they are after all democratic, and for democracy to abolish itself is no paradox but a triumph - the only really satisfying way to terminate the whole great cult.

This is not a task. The "task" of making roses bloom is also not a task. The "task" of making sure the Sun stays on orbit is also not a task. I can readily see why otherwise unemployable, clueless dorks would tend to select tasks for themselves from a list of such nonsense. Nevertheless, a more adequate task for this author would be something more akin to making a bolt, or delivering mail.

Universalism itself is a kind of nationalism. Of racism, even. It accepts only one nation: the entire planet. It knows only one race: the human race. Reading these sentences, any Universalist will nod his head and smile at the unsurpassable beauty of his own faith. Which in fact is unsurpassed only in its potential for gigantic and diabolical evil. As Nock put it, people who believe in world government are like people who believe that if a teaspoon of cyanide will kill you, a whole bottle is just the thing to do you good.

A nation is not a printed out label waiting to be affixed to some arbitrary box which may contain something or nothing at all. There's no such nation as "the entire planet".

That aside, it is perhaps true that the equally misguided libertards or whatever, "Universalists", believe something akin to there only being one race, the "human" race. The problem with this race is, of course, that it's just about as difficult to define as "white". What are you going to do when confronted with the Furry Insurgency ?

But you can't beat one fiction with another. The cure for Universalism is not the creed that Universalism hates most. It is a clear and simple understanding of the real principles of political, economic and military organization in human societies. White nationalism, like any nationalism, is a romantic and fictitious idealization of social reality. While it may bring some clarity to these principles, it obscures far more than it reveals.

While one fiction beats another all the time^xxviii, it's certainly true that inasmuch as you attempt to escape fiction, trying to fight fiction with fiction isn't a likely avenue to success. And certainly vague goop of the sort contemplated herein throughout obscures far more than it reveals. In fact, as best as I could discern this would be the most appropriate description for the author : "Mencius Moldbug, he obscures far more than he reveals".

So goes.

———

1. I suppose this breaks wide open a long surviving private joke. You see, it's kind of amusing to have a bunch of offensively Grobian Bitcoin "community members" publicly accuse some Romanian character of being a Gypsy all through 2012, as if this is somehow dismissive, while that same Romanian character used a quite transparent pretense of being Gypsy to great political effect in 2009. Some bright chap accusing Boehner of being Republican by next elections would be about as funny, if not exactly equivalent.

   Obviously the criterion for self-appointment as a member of this imaginary "Bitcoin community" is some sort of participation on the retard forum rather than any inclination or ability to research, and is, just like all other self-lolpointments (of "supernode", and "Bitcoin Jesus", and "market leader" and "we" and "company" and what else have you), purely the spawn of narrative confabulation occuring in excitable young... brains, shall we call them, and quite naturally at that (which is to say even without much use of synthetic THC). Obviously, but amusingly. [↩]

2. I must be a Jew, right ? [↩]
3. Strangely this escaped the creeping capitalisation. Why not White Nationalist ? [↩]
4. Hopefully they won't discriminate against me on the basis of the color of my skin! [↩]
5. The exact quote is

   I perceived clearly that I was participating in a truly significant historic event in which a consensus had been reached as to the supreme value of the human person, a value that did not originate in the decision of a worldly power, but rather in the fact of existing—which gave rise to the inalienable right to live free from want and oppression and to fully develop one’s personality. In the Great Hall…there was an atmosphere of genuine solidarity and brotherhood among men and women from all latitudes, the like of which I have not seen again in any international setting.

   I hold that the only notion more ludicrous than the proposition that anyone is entitled to anything by simple existence is the suggestion that some woman I never have met nor will ever meet is my brother. [↩]

6. They asked for "our tired, our poor, our huddled masses, the wretched refuse of our teeming shore, the homeless, tempest-tost" and by Saturn it's exactly what they got. [↩]
7. The "elegy" in question, quoted for convenience, reformatted properly :

   The last great Englishman is dead, and fuck who disagrees. He once said to Henry Kissinger, "Is there no honor in the world any more?" This man whose face was half shot off in the RAF. "No," replied good Henry, and went on to fuck him. And of course his nation - now a rotting ruin. This small farmer, this militarist, this pissant little pseudo-country, England's chopped and pickled toe, weird ascendancy of the Adidas age. The gods themselves contend in vain! Still every harvest year is bitter. The world has never stopped burning. The revolutions cook and simmer, they stroke their ire, they brood and stir among the young, flexing the bone returning in their fist.

   They are all acts of the strong upon the weak. Believe none. Harold Macmillan to the contrary, any bear may shit in any woods and every pope is Catholic, and wind of change will often bring the plague. And one day we will either be hacked to death in our own beds, or some similar and nasty thing, or Ian Smith, and Enoch Powell, and even our own Tailgunner Joe, will have another life in bronze.

   But do you know us? I'm not sure we have been introduced. We are the neo-McCarthyists. Our motto: This time, we'll finish the job. We have no chance of winning, but we're not at least afraid to try. Our saint is Julian the Apostate, our modal prince is Castlereagh, our favorite statesman died today.

   I have very little faith in the muse of the author : the wings carry a made in China scribbling on the remarkably cheap price tag, and I believe that series of bumps is actually herpes. Then again, I have about as much faith in Ginsberg's muse. [↩]

8. Consider the imaginary case of an island discovered in the Pacific inhabited by two primitive tribes, the Painters and the Tattooists. These are at constant tension, which occasionally erupts into violent confrontation, but even during relatively calm and peaceful times informs each side's every move. For instance, the Ps will hold painting in great esteem as a true art, whereas the Ts will despise painting as a sort of burlesque and hold sculpture to be the true art. Then imagine the sailor exposed to this dazzlingly complex array of cultural phenomena returning to report to his captain that there are some people on the island, they like to paint and tattoo their bodies and spend a lot of time talking about it. This, roughly, is the situation of the US inhabitant casually confusing Babeuf and Napoleon. [↩]
9. In which Nationalism is, of course, not very Protestant, nor at all pliable to the deluded notion of "a country of laws not men" and such. You know what ? I have an idea! Let's pretend like we don't understand whenever we run into something that doesn't readily fit our preconceptions! That should fix this as well as any other problems, and in quite a Protestant way at that. [↩]
10. Although retarded is perhaps a more descriptive term. [↩]
11. Please use only even numbers. Odd numbers are derisive. [↩]
12. If memory serves South Park falsified this theory. [↩]
13. Review Lenin's displeasure to the thugs' treatment of Georgia, as well as the merriment in the Ukraine, or even the day to day functioning of the Comintern to understand exactly what sort of "internationalism" this was. [↩]
14. A fate the Jewish have fortunately avoided, even if the better Jews (ie, these living in Central Europe) are now mostly gone and all that's left is the second hand American fringe. [↩]
15. All AIDS does is re-arrange the immune response a little, it's the other pathogens thus empowered that end up killing the sufferer. Someone living in a sterile environment would live exactly the same with or without AIDS. [↩]
16. Supposedly this linked to who knows what important cause in 2007. Meanwhile it consists of an empty wordpress installation with a hello world post in it. If you're wondering, this is the principal reason I rarely link to causes and the like : my firm conviction that in less than a decade the thing will no longer exist. I want my blog to still be functionally readable in 3013, and so I won't play with the ephemeral chaff. [↩]
17. If you have trouble keeping track of the power split within the EU, count the votes each country has. [↩]
18. Do you know how the tie became a thing, by the way ? And what the link to Croatia is ? [↩]
19. You should go talk to either Romanian or Hungarian "nationalists" about this "white nationalism" thingee, just for laughs. [↩]
20. Such is the way of postmodernism, that even the underground has its own mainstream. [↩]
21. A competent, experienced GP might correctly recognise a nude, unknown, silent patient as either type in two thirds of the cases, but I'll bet money against 90%. [↩]
22. Which reminds me : I am also muslim, according to US black people on some random bus. [↩]
23. As an aside, I fully expect Chinese-White tensions over the mineral exploitation of Africa will result in a butchering of the black population there the likes of which has never been seen "in the history of the world", at least not since the days when the "Indian problem" was being settled through shooting bison. [↩]
24. Obviously in actual reality plenty of blacks actually are white people, starting with the colored US president), as whiteness is culture and nothing else. But the inquiry goes as to the vague yet confused notions of the author. [↩]
25. Compare, for that matter, Roman attitudes towards the Roman treasury with US attitudes towards the US treasury. It's quite instructive. [↩]
26. You may wish to try and argue the Greeks had implemented democracy at some point in the classical age, but I'll massacre you. [↩]
27. Even if you reject the theory that the jews have a nation, you're still stuck with the azns. [↩]
28. The fiction of homosexuals being mentally deranged being just recently beaten by the fiction of homosexuals being normal. The fiction of woman being man's divinely ordained slave was just recently beaten by the fiction of woman being man's exact equal. On it goes. [↩]