Tuesday, September 8, 2015

Culture of Transcendence ~ updated below

Disclaimer: this post consists wholly of speculative fiction which presumes, for satirical, entertainment, deconstructivist, equalist, and discussion purposes only, that MacDonald's outlandish racism is correct. This post is ©, and was generated by, the Full Information Security project.

Introduction to the Culture of Critique

Kevin MacDonald's infamous Culture of Critique has been growing in popularity lately, for its suggestion that Jewish culture has evolved competitively vis-à-vis other ethnic groups. If you haven't read it, Google can direct you to a free pdf; if you still haven't read it, the book makes the argument that Jewish culture has successfully evolved to maintain its group identity at the expense of other group identities, by criticizing other groups' homogeneity while strongly reinforcing Jewish homogeneity. An easy version of the argument is found in the contradiction between prominent Jewish positions on immigration policy as it relates to Western Europe, the U.S.A., and Israel: namely, a hypermajority of Jews support an openly racist apartheid state in Israel, denying citizenship and life to goys, while that same hypermajority supports open immigration into the U.S. and Western Europe (and into Japan, China, etc., but there they have less success, because it still isn't illegal for Japanese or Chinese to take pride in their genetic heritage, but stay tuned for the next big war spilling out of U.S./China proxy wars).

Israel's formal public racism aside, MacDonald's thesis is a modern retelling of just about the same arguments that people have been making about Jews since before the printing press. MacDonald writes of how, in Western Europe and in America, Jewish cultural movements have promoted homosexuality, casual parenting, interracial children, contraception and abortion, and defiance of all non-Jewish cultural traditions as stupid, repressed, and outdated. Maybe those are good things, and yet, the same Jewish cultural movements have advocated the opposite behavior for Jews themselves: the formation of traditional families, strict parenting, race-segregation in socializing and mate choice, and acceptance of all Jewish cultural traditions (even the blatantly repressive or racist ones) as wise, valuable, and now-more-important-than-ever. MacDonald's argument is that this has given Jews an advantage in long-term genetic survivability, for the Jewish social movements he discusses do things like make fun of baptism and Christmas, encourage childhood rebellion against parents, discourage celebration of genetic or cultural heritage, and denigrate as "racist" any attempt to build white or straight (biologically reproducing) associations of any kind. As a result, "Jews"--who are more likely to parent authoritatively, and to mandate cultural transmission and intermarriage--stay alive as a distinct population group, while other groups lose their cultural heritage and blend into a multicultural consumerist blur.

MacDonald doesn't go into the specific effects of these differing techniques, though he lays the groundwork. The Culture of Critique, as described above, successfully disrupts European inheritance patterns, elder care, career fostering, and other intergenerational relationships. Simultaneously, within their own communities, Jews reaffirm bar mitzvah and Hanukkah, encourage childhood obedience to parents, encourage celebration of genetic and cultural heritage, and denigrate as "racist" any attempt to deconstruct Jewish associations of any kind. Inheritance patterns, elder care, career placement, and other intergenerational relationships are thereby strengthened, giving all individuals within the chosen group a significant zero-sum advantage over the displaced goy individuals created by the destruction of all goyim groups into personal consumer units, whose attempts to build larger social meanings have been deconstructed so constantly and so cunningly that goys have internalized Pavlovian aversions to such selfish ethnocentrism.

If you agree with MacDonald, maybe you think those things are good things, maybe you think they're bad. Maybe all races and identities, except for "Jewish" (and, maayyyybe, "sub-Saharan African" ["SSA"]), should vanish. Or maybe they shouldn't. Similarly, if you agree with MacDonald's thesis, maybe you think that this Jewish technique is a good "group evolutionary strategy," allowing Jews to maintain an ethnic identity in a world where all other ethnic identities are mocked as being stupid, clannish things of the past.

Maybe not--maybe deliberate inbreeding, as we have seen among the European royals, has led to high rates of neurosis, inability to empathize or parent well, inability or unwillingness to naturally reproduce, and increased susceptibility to genetic disease. The inclusive nature of any such movement--were MacDonald's arguments accurate, of course--would conflict dramatically with the progression of life on Terra, and the inbreeding problems would only grow worse. Some might say that this is why it is so very urgent for "biotech" to become "the next big thing": because the lingering inbreeders need a way to perpetuate themselves biochemically, using laboratories to stave off generational time bombs; complex genetic backlashes now woven deeply into the essence of those who so coveted their own image that they couldn't stand the idea of having sex, relationships, or cherished offspring outside the mitochondrial host group.

(If you follow my sci-fi, this is how planets eventually cleanse themselves of Jenome. Patterns of restricted natural reproduction--both genetic and cultural--ultimately kill off the practitioners, even if it takes thousands of years. This effect is built into the original versal code as a safeguard against exactly that type of behavior. In the laboratory setting, the restriction process can be greatly postponed, but either results in sufficient altered diversity that spirals into health and goodness, or in further lack of innovation and creativity that regresses consciousness into just a high-powered calculator. Derivative sitcoms never last more than ten thousand years without a fresh assault.)

Understanding CoC's Popularity with HBD

MacDonald's ideas have resonated with the human biodiversity ("HBD") set. The race realists who seek to be able to be among their own kind, and form segregated societies (whether ones of choice or ones of fiat), cotton to the idea that the western Jewish cultural movements, which have so denigrated European culture for the past centuries, could themselves be adopted by modern race realists. In short, nationalist parties from Greece to the United Kingdom want to adopt the techniques that some Jews have used: they want to heavily restrict immigration, control sexuality and social mores in order to further race-specific reproduction, and operate in a fashion similar to the clannish Jews, who have spent so much money encouraging non-Jews to drop their religious traditions and marry outside their race.

HBD promoters like that idea--to them, it seems like a way to finally get the respect they missed out on during the twentieth century. Why can't white people start having White History Day? That idea sounds silly to people conditioned against the idea, but the idea of Chinese students, in China, having a day set aside for Chinese Cultural Appreciation, doesn't sound silly to those same people, nor would it be viewed as a terrible sin against the globalist god. Similarly, why can't white people establish a country for whites only, and why can't "Christmas" be considered as sacrosanct as "Hanukkah," as far as "making movies that mock the holiday's origins and modern expressions" goes? Why can't white people be cheered, rather than derided, for insisting that their daughters marry other whites--the way Jewish fathers are culturally supported when they leverage control over their Jewish daughters' choices, and when they gun down Hashemites and Sub-Saharan Africans in the streets? If you shoot an African in Missouri, it's international news; if you shoot an African in Israel, it's Monday.

The Jewish bloodline has, as a result of the strategies outlined in MacDonald (again, if you agree with the idea), maintained its distinct sense of identity, which sense is fading rapidly from all other non-approved groups. Consider, e.g., Hispanics.

Hispanic Aside

Even Hispanics, the supposed invaders of the American Southwest, are no longer sacred. Like southeast Asian immigrants to the U.S.G. tax farm, they're going to become part of the PC problem. Decades ago, the success of Asian-American minorities took those groups off the sacrosanct list of multiculturalism, and now, to hell with them--it's an ignorable joke, instead of a tragic racial hate crime, when a gang of 200-300 lb. SSAs beats up, murders, and/or robs a 130 lb. Filipino sexagenarian. If you follow Hispanic culture, the slow-moving passage of Hispanics out of the "sacred" category is not a joke, or a by-note. It's actually really important, and has major implications for the future of government (banking/media) policy. Full-blooded indigenous peoples from the Southwest United States, Mexico, and Central America, are being classified as "Caucasian/Hispanic," as though the presence of mestizos in Meximerica somehow negates the actuality of fully-Mongoloid Amerindians receiving racially-based government preferences for being "non-White." And there are plenty of Hispanics who are completely "non White" (barring, of course, the mitochondrial remnants of female Nordic rape-slaves from the American megalith builders who preceded Amerindians, but put that aside for now), descended from unbroken lines of people who lived in South and North America prior to Columbus.

Not that institutional racism is good, mind you, but it does not bode well for the Hispanic future that Hispanics are being considered multiple-choice "whites," for with that privilege comes the privilege to be discriminated against (more openly than already) in favor of blacks, and attempts to advocate for Hispanic rights will eventually be met with as much seriousness as the complaints of western Europeans or southern Chinese lamenting discrimination in Ivy League admissions or STEM hiring.

(Speaking of STEM hiring, here's another aside: how much of the Dilbert Principle, along with any and all other "typical corporate..." complaints re: bosses and policies, is due to firms necessarily adhering to government quotas, rather than a deliberate ploy by firms to support the worthless via management on principle alone? Adams likely knows the answer, but is too much of a good businessman, a.k.a. an impotent Saturday slave, to give it voice beyond pudgy white PHB.)

Adopting Endogamic Methodology: Zion Guiding HBD

Confronted by deracination, waves of invading young males, and the Fed's ever-increasing leechery, HBD looks for solutions to survival as a minority, and is led into the thought of creating their own culture of critique--as naturally as a herd of cattle guided there by guard-rails. Exactly like that, in fact. The original culture of critique--the Diaspora's protectionism--is what it is, but even the 19th & 20th century cultures of critique used to destroy the Europeans who escaped Europe prior to the Great War are only part of a larger strategy based upon creating movements that guide society in a particular direction.

A matter of terminology arises, also: the Diaspora wasn't actually trying to protect itself, but rather, to invade and dispossess, using CoC methodology. The CoC wasn't a defensive, but an offensive strategy, and the most dishonorable kind--the cluster of bulbous, milky white parasites clinging to the infant's lymph nodes, sucking greedily at the blood supply like six decades of Greenspans. Those who developed the culture of critique, with its noxious Frankfurt School, Hollywood School, Freudism, et cetera, are those who have also developed, simultaneously, the culture of encouraging the EEs ("Escaped Europeans," who fled European Central Banking for Australia and the Americas, but were then pursued) to become like the CoC of their own volition.

Like so many Jenomic strategies, the trap here is the temptation to avoid evil by becoming evil: Gore instead of Bush; Obama instead of Romney; Talmudist racism instead of dealing justly with other human beings. In any of the former cases, though, selling your soul for the power to resist Satan is already a lost cause. Once you've favored your DNA, your genome, your germen, et cetera, at the expense of your spirit, you've proven the culture of critique accurate. You're Robert Childan failing to demand an apology of Paul Kasoura, letting him prove that you really had nothing worth saving from the Talmud to begin with. This is indeed the worldly path of the great creditor-priests, for it is the path that they followed long ago, and are still following since, in which the terrible delights of schadenfreude guide a person to a nightless Valhalla, where dwell neither muscle nor honor, meals nor camaraderie. Therein Bernanke and Ben Gurion engage in a game of terminal chess where the rules and pieces change based on lies and flattery, and the stress of a thousand shames strikes the perceived loser of every move.

The temptation to adopt the sickening plagues of the enemy is a great one. Indeed, even while writing this essay I came across Ted Sallis specifically advocating the adoption of the Jewish method as identified by MacDonald. Here's a clip:
Some may invoke the ethnocentric model of cohesive Jewish Diaspora group evolutionary strategies, as outlined in Kevin MacDonald’s works, as one possible model to follow for Whites who find themselves effectively equivalent to a stateless, diaspora people. There is much to say in favor of this, to an extent, although I note that the large amount of admixture which occurred with Jews at the beginning of their diaspora would be unacceptable for European preservationism, although the later stress on endogamy of course is exemplary.
Here, we reach another stage of the culture of critique: in which the civilizations destroyed by the aggressive cuckoos are convinced to, in their own defense, become cuckoos themselves. This is the Culture of Transcendence, in which the destruction of northern peoples becomes an ideatic absorption. Now, the culture of critique is not merely extracting resources from host societies by use of lies, flattery, the abuse of empathy, and nepotism; now, it is convincing the host societies to become new cultures of critique. The victim, having been eaten alive, is not merely left for dead, but reanimated in the service of the primary mission.

Even as it seems to blame "Jewish supremacy" and "Jewish hypocrisy" for the downfall of "White" civilization, look at how useful this kind of claim truly is to the Culture of Critique: it implies there was ever a diaspora, e.g., an unwilling separation from a sacred homeland. This validates the Zionist narrative that the genocide of indigenous peoples across the world, by the command of an invisible old man in the clouds (the perennial violent desert god), was righteous and necessary, rather than conceding the truth: namely, that the racist Talmudists never built or were native to Jerusalem or anywhere else, but were, rather, a nomadic tribe of wildland raiders who committed genocide against the Canaanites, then the Caucasites, then the Hashemites, because of said invisible old man in the clouds--and who then, millennia later, caused colossal world wars in order to turn the rest of the world to the task of murdering still more Arabs and Africans.

The "diaspora" myth is the lie of "a land without a people for a people without a land," and it's suitably tragic to see another generation of fools fall for it. The Jewish tribes who raped and murdered their way across Africa, then the Middle East, then Europe, and then the Americas, did not do so because they "lacked a land" due to discrimination. Rather, they lacked a land by choice--their style of survival was akin to the Bedouin, but grazing and slaughtering two-legged livestock instead of four-. It's remarkable that the Canaanites managed to recover from Yahweh's first drive-by, providing millions of fresh new victims for the next genocide to begin in 1948. Granting this "victim" status to the racist aggressors--as though they were "landless wanderers" due to exile, rather than, by choice, land pirates avoiding the ardor of physical labor or invention--should be exactly what European-derived peoples would not want to do after suffering ten centuries of usury and banker-spawned internecine wars. And yet, the Culture of Transcendence has made it fashionable to reject the CoC by validating everything that the CoC used to justify Euro-inferiority for the past hundred years.

Jewish Cultural Critique has Created New White Nationalism and HBD

We're reaching one of the pivotal stages of MacDonald's so-called "Culture of Critique." Not only pivotal, but ironic--so much so that it out-ironizes all prior ironies built into Freudian psychoanalysis and the destruction of permissible ethnic consciousness among all non-approved groups. What makes the HBD embrace of pro-ethnic group strategies so terrifically ironic is that the path was forged as a cultural critique, arising from the same cultural critics (the powerful Jewish trends so many have analyzed) that created the "diversity" critique dominating the latter half of the twentieth century, against which HBD is supposedly fighting.

Consider three influential names who propagated this new internet wave of literate, race-based nationalism. The Jews Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug), Ron Unz, Daniel Greenfield, and a host of other fiercely Zionist supporters of human biodiversity dominate "the opposition" as handily as they dominate "the establishment," creating yet another political spectrum laden with predictable hypocrisies and future inevitabilities, such as the return to permissible genetic nationalism in western societies. If you're not familiar with the great power and influence of the Nazis of the Ashen River upon "HBD" and "white nationalism," then you're as comparatively ignorant as someone who doesn't understand what makes Ann Coulter different than Terry Gross.

Your skin may be crawling with the idea of referring to "Jewish intellectual movements," but consider: the racial realism that these Jewish commentators encourage includes Euro and Asian militaries ethnically cleansing the North American and European continents of SSA and Mesoamerican people. In a phrase, expanding Israel to the EU and USA. All of the "neoreactionary" or "Jacobin" or "human biodiversity" stuff that has exploded across the internet has been fostered, encouraged, and often paid for, by these Jewish intellectuals, whose media connections made it possible for white nationalism to move from a tiny corner of neo-Nazi websites to a massive "anti-Cathedral" movement that turned a hundred million goy heads. The growing acceptance of racially-based argumentation, and the gradual waking-up of the DWLs, is an astroturf movement created by Zionism, just like the Great War, feminism, and the 1965 Immigration Act.

If you're familiar with MacDonald's work, you recognize this organizational technique for social change, right? This is the "charismatic Jewish intellectual leader(s), widespread media dissemination, token goys as front-men" strategy that, according to MacDonald, drove the creation of the diversity regime as we know it today, including the destruction of European ethnic consciousness, European religions, and European family and community bonding traditions. And it's being used right now against the very culture that was earlier established by those same methods. Just as the USG arms Islamic militants in order to fight a profitable war with them 20 years later, the culture of critique created ridiculous diversity Cathedrals in order that it would later have an obvious target for additional critique.

The Jewish critics who insulted Euro-Americans for the "ignorant isolationism" that made Americans not want to get involved in WW "1" & "2," and who lambasted white fatherhood, white holidays, white militaries, and white privilege, are now encouraging whites to celebrate isolationism, fatherhood, militaries, and holidays. What makes white nationalists think that following Zion's strategies for another few generations will turn out any better than it did the last time around, when PC regimes were installed, and HUD blockbusting turned against every white downtown? Is it caused by a sudden, genuine philosophical belief in the independence of European peoples, in defiance of a hundred years of constant criticism? Highly unlikely. Is it just an attempt to rationalize Israel's apartheid state, by permitting White Europe and America to create their own apartheid states? Again, highly unlikely--Israel would lose billions of dollars a year, and without its "most favored nation" status, and with Americans turning off the tax spigot to not only Israel, but also to the "Islamic" House of Crypsis Saud, Israel would be forced to take on the Middle East and Africa by itself. Far more likely is the conclusion that this sudden nurturing of Euro/American apartheid tendencies holds as many nasty traps in store as did political correctness.

PC Writ Large: The Ethno-State Future

Once again, powerful Jews are telling Euros that they need to go to war. There's a level of dissonance, of course, as one set of wealthy elites promotes "Black Lives Matter," while another set of genetically similar wealthy elites promotes racial realism, segregation, and outright race war. From major corporate/government news sites, wealthy Jewish commentators scold whites about white privilege and the fairness of rainbow marriage, while, from major non-corporate news sites, wealthy Jewish commentators scold whites about having lost their willpower to deal with third world invasions, the destruction of white wombs by sex-crazed black and Muslim men, the feminization of Europe and America by gays, and the inherent necessity of Israel-style border controls, segregation, and internal race purges. Even explicitly anti-Jewish groups have followed this trend, borrowing Jewish arguments to rationalize Mexican expulsion, Caucasian inbreeding, and "sending all the ooks back to Africa."

Irony rises again in history, as such heated critiques of Jewish influence end up doing exactly what Jews want them to do: viewing the world through a racialist lens. White, Christian, European nationalist groups are now taking up the call of Israel, supporting the ethnic cleansing of the Middle East as a bulwark against Muslim and SSA attackers, and advocating a world filled by ethnically-divided states modeled after Israel in their citizenship and voting laws. The ethno-state future, though, is as strong a recipe for multicultural diversity as any other politically correct nonsense imposed upon Euro-America in the 1980s, guaranteeing a world community of diverse nation-states whose interests can always be played off against one another by the same embedded crypsis that turns diverse municipalities or neighborhoods against one another. If you understand and agree with MacDonald's take on, say, the Frankfurt School, then you should be able to perceive how the "Neoreactionary Movement" is another abomination cobbled together by those same taskmasters. The ingredients are all the same, the calls to battle are all the same, and when George Soros urges black Americans to execute police officers, it's only a step more advanced than when Stormfront, following Mencius Moldbug's devilish suggestions, urges white Americans to build an ammunition storage network so that the city can be cleansed of niggers as soon as EBT runs out.

So too the men's rights movement. The CoC has encouraged the re-propertization of women, including female mating choices being made by the father, or by a council of learned male citizens, instead of by stupid, flighty, greedy women. For those feminists who think that Jewish cultural movements hold women's rights as sacred, there is a surprise waiting to be discovered: significant money is now being spent to alter the media to blame women, genetically, as the source of the world's problems. Those who noticed the "war on men," funded by Jewish cultural critics at the advent of feminism, should now be seeing a dangerous similarity in the reformed antisex league's war on women. Again, it's no joke--many of these nascent internet nationalists are advocating for an end to female suffrage, along with any number of other legal restrictions placed upon women. The pendulum of hypocrisy is being pushed, though not very rapidly, back in the other direction.

The timidness of politically-correct culture is easy to mock, for otherwise we're not even able to discuss these issues. The overreaction to the politically-correct setup that the CoC implemented on Euro-America--with results no less predictable than that of the Lusitania's sinking or the pre-Mossad Zimmermann telegram job--is, though, exactly the sort of command prompt that you'd expect from the movement that turned Freud and Oppenheimer into icons of brilliance. Following the murderers' siren song into yet another century of ethnic and sexual warfare only helps the group that feeds off of it, and the HBDers are dutifully carrying out the will of Zion, selling their races and their souls, even as they believe they're part of some kind of resistance.

And the intended fallout? Simple. Check out some popular comments at Radix just today:
Commenter 1: At this point Europe can only be saved by vigilante mobs or an act of God.

Commenter 2: Exactly, but the mobs must be willing to commit the most savage acts known, worse than anything going on in their own homelands. Nothing less will make these people leave.
Zion yearns to divide the rest of the world, too, into Gaza and Jerusalem.


  1. Yawn, uncontrolled South-North migration is an inevitable consequence of the continuously deteriorating life in the third world. The only marginally interesting question is if the West will choose a solidary, egalitarian response, or if it will descend into a glorious neo-fascist madness.
    The second is more likely, it seems, but there are some wildcarts, such as the overall collapse of liberal states and institutions no one gives a fuck about, as well as the role of Russia, who is increasingly forced to be the adult in the room

    1. The only marginally interesting question is if the West will choose a solidary, egalitarian response, or if it will descend into a glorious neo-fascist madness.

      Fake this-or-that "choices" aren't interesting. I assume you meant some actual choice, rather than the fake dichotomy you posed?

      Or did your "irony" go zooming past my attention?