I'm always grateful to hear progressives’ honest insights into what things they want, why they want them, and why they believe the things they do.

It seems commonplace to me that ideologues reflect upon epistemology and then devise theories regarding what they think *should* win people over to their cause (and *shouldn't* win people to others), but it's rare that people ever suspend their egos enough to observe for what reasons others cite for why they undergo durable, Damascene conversions. Maybe they're afraid of examining their preferences for fear of undergoing similar transitions.

I feel obliged that I should respond in kind and reveal what it is that makes *me* tick, regardless of how irrelevant it may be to the motivations of others:

I am the inheritor of an incredible 50,000-year heritage, perhaps greater than any other that has ever existed, and I value it dearly, both in its genetic distinction and in its cultural manifestation.

The lie that “White people have no culture” is birthed from the same place as the myth that “race does not exist biologically.” Same with the rhetorical—“why would I take credit for another's accomplishments”—question of individualism: divide and rule. White American culture is the European culture whose heritage Great Britain shared with continental Europe long before the age of exploration ever commenced. It is in fact the oldest, deepest-rooted things which White Americans share most in common with continental Europe, and the newest, most-ephemeral things which they do not. Any attack on this realization which characterizes it as being an appeal to a “lowest common denominator” boomerangs tenfold upon those who wish to supplant it with Humanitarianism.

A person has a 1.0 kinship with themselves, 0.5 with a child they produce, 0.25 with a grandchild, and so on until 1000 generations on, kinship approaches zero. By contrast, Whites and Blacks have an FST of .12 which has been about where it currently is since 10000 years ago, and which will remain the same another 10000 years on from now. If the average similarity between randomly-selected pairs of Europeans is regarded as a kinship of “zero” then Whites & Blacks have a kinship of -24%. Racial distinction is more eternal than my personal bloodline could ever have any hope of being.

I HAD my golden ticket to immortality, and it was taken from me. I want it back.

An attempt in history to universalize this way of thinking was nationalism: This being the anti-monarchical, anti-imperial political movement premised on the conviction that *peoples* ought to have self rule. There's a reason “nation state” was ever a term: The two are distinct concepts. In one of the great ironies of history, the states that nationalists erected are now warping the meaning of language itself: Not only aren't they nation states anymore, the state will have us know that *it* is the nation, that the alien janissaries it invites have “citizenship” just like we do, and that the state has the right to abolish the very nation which erected it.

I don't care so much about the universalization of the impulse as an end unto itself, but it may not matter. Kant was right that once we grok the nature of his argument for the categorical imperative, then we cannot unsee it, and we *have* to cooperate in the prisoner's dilemma, at least conceptually, if for no other reason than the sake of our own self interest.

Now, I think I understand pretty well why this way of thinking doesn't appeal to Humanitarians. They should correct me if I put words in their mouths, but as I'd characterize it in a nutshell, their discomfort with the prescription of comprehensive remigration is rooted in its prerequisite of inflicting extraordinary cruelty upon endless numbers of innocent people.

Humanitarians are unwilling to sacrifice mercy as the price for immortality. I am unwilling to sacrifice immortality as the price for mercy.

Humanitarians likely wouldn't care, but *my* objection to their preference is thus:

If demographic change cannot be reversed here, then it can never be reversed anywhere. To make immigration policy a debate regarding immigration *rates* instead of one regarding *accumulation* is to demand that European man exists nowhere, and that the entire world mongrelizes into a God-forsaken Babylon of rootless mystery-meat people. That is, a planet of natural slaves, who are devoid of any sense of history, and who are easily bent to the whims of those who manage not to drink from the poison chalice. He who sacrifices his people's heritage and self determination in the name of “liberty” deserves neither and will lose both. Requesting that I—“imagine the conflict-free utopia we'll have once we're all the same shade of brown”—does not suffice to change my mind. We HAD that utopia that multiracialists claim to dream of. Everybody was the same shade of brown already (that shade being White). It was discarded for no good reason, and the needless act of “mercy” has only made immense amounts of suffering inevitable.

By contrast, I think I know of an objection Humanitarians may find compelling:

I've elaborated on it before1, but I have somewhere new to go with it. As a refresher, assuming multiracialism is even a project worth executing successfully (I don’t agree that it is), it's not the Racist Restorative Right who Humanitarians need to be on guard against, it's the maximally-alien foreign ethnic chauvinists we’ve been importing at record pace, who have no tradition of thinking the way we do, who need to be mindraped more intensely than anybody else. As such, it's the project's strongest advocates, who view European man as the “bad guy” of history, who do more than anybody else to doom the project, for it is they who most lack the heart necessary to stomach the antidote.

Where I'm going with this is that as it concerns collectives of men, the universal predation of all against all is the default state of nature, not because it is the original station of man, but because it is so easily reverted to after it's been escaped.

The reason why this is a default is partially to do with the innate inequality among men. I don't think I have to litigate this premise since I know most people already do not believe in the innate equality of man, not in the sense that matters anyways. After all, the natural station of man isn't even the important question to begin with: Is it not apostacy to demand the empirically-innate equality of man as a precondition for treating people with equal dignity? A demand for innate equality only debases what it means to respect others. If not *equal* dignity then, how about whatever amount of dignity is commensurate with [???]?

Essentially, the reasons why—universal predation is the natural default of the human condition in the state of nature—are as follows:

1. The question of what treatment is commensurate with [???], or of what metric is even worth treating people commensurately in terms of, is subjective.

2. Moreover, regardless of what answer we decide on, the natural & unchosen inequalities among men are easily confused as being “predations” to be retaliated against.

3. Further, when amoral actors are treated by the law as if they are moral actors, “the law” is easily twisted into being an instrument of predation against moral actors on the part of immoral actors; the ability for—people to litigate who is whom—is a precondition for “the law” to mean anything at all, and yet to even articulate the paradox of tolerance is to equip immoral actors with greater vocabulary with which to leverage “the law” as an instrument of predation against moral actors.

4. Further still, no man has the moral instincts of a perfect angel, no two men share innately-equal moral instincts, and no collective of perfect moral angels is capable of—acting as a perfect moral actor at the collective level—due to the sheer coordination difficulties inherent in attempting such an endeavor.

If Humanitarians can regard this tinderbox of tendencies as depressingly hopeless, I agree! Even “true justice” that gets established temporarily is easily liable to revert to universal predation, to the blame of nobody. Fortunately, there’s a silver lining: The sheer difficulty of making it work, the fact that universal predation is the default “state of nature” caused by nobody, actually acts as reason to remove the blame from everybody and to begin on a clean slate every once in a while. Moreover, the justifiability of doing so only grows when a cycle of retaliations against retaliations goes on longer and longer, because the ground truth of who started what fades from recorded memory as the cycle continues.

An actor's mere existence as a rational agent is not sufficient to obligate “morality” in his behavior2. As such, when everybody is in the state of nature, how do we actually know for sure that the other guy is an amoral actor who would be unwilling to participate in good faith within a rational social contract, if it existed? So long as an actor's record of predations against others was not accrued within the bounds of a rational social contract, that record is not what decides his capacity to act as a rational moral agent.

Is Morality Fake & Gay?

The Racist Restorative Right has a common refrain: “Morality is fake and gay.”

They don't actually believe this. The number of martyrs they've produced is a flagrant receipt that they don't. What they believe, and what they often cannot articulate, is that they are outside the protection of the social contract3, that they have no hope of winning back its protection, and that as such, they have every right to revert to naked predation upon those who participate within this twisted social contract. After all, if nobody is willing to hear them out, what point is there even articulating their dilemma well enough to extend the olive branch? For them, the refrain is simply a signaling mechanism for identifying who they can trust.

I disagree. The assertion may accurate by default, but the fact that it's accurate by default also allows it to occasionally *stop* being true. I believe that my adversaries have rational moral actors within their ranks who can be negotiated with in good faith, and maybe even won over to my side on occasion. Even if they constitute a small minority, they are in fact the most-valuable, most-elite members within their coalition.

I don't know why foreigners would feel obliged to help me reclaim my golden ticket within heaven, but I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth. It would likely simplify things, and be easier for me, if no such people existed and if the “Morality is fake and gay” assertion were an accurate, sufficient assessment of the horizon of circumstance. Still, such actors force me to confront their existence as rational moral agents among foreign peoples (even Africans & Indians), however rarer they may be than those found among the ranks of European man.

In any case, this means that it isn't strictly racial conflict I'm interested in waging, and maybe not even strictly ideological conflict, but rather a moral conflict between two conflicting social contracts.

My demands, concerning what would put me within the protection of the social contract, are as follows:

1. Freedom of association.

2. Freedom to litigate, regarding peoples' records of predation, the facts of history and the facts of nature while remaining within the bounds of polite society.

If we can agree upon our demands, then we need not be foes.

If not, then this still does not put the question to bed entirely. It is still possible to abstract over the question of what is moral or immoral, and to instead ask “what do conflicting social contracts owe each other?” There's a natural answer found in a return to federalism; good fences make good neighbors.

I believe that we can negotiate with each other in good faith. It requires only that we are honest, with ourselves and with each other, regarding what things we want, why we want them, and why we believe the things we do.

Whether Humanitarians trust me or not is their prerogative, but in the case they don't, I am more than happy to revert to the universal predation of all against all. As I see it, the only responsibility I must discharge in order for me to keep my place in heaven is—to extend the olive branch in good faith no matter how bad my circumstance becomes—not to get the other party to actually accept the olive branch.

The League Of Nations can be workable as a project, at least occasionally, but the necessary precondition is that Hitler must have his seat at the table.