What I’d say is that I’m not proposing a remedy, I’m only pointing out that a particular class of remedies which reject aspects of progressivism while holding other aspects fixed, which is basically the umbrella of conservatism, doesn’t work. It has been tried and repeatedly failed.

Which means that we solutions are going to have sacrifice some of what we might like. God in his aspect as GNON does not hear prayers.

Once we grant that the only stable holistic solutions probably don’t include perfection in subdomains (like capitalism), then the question becomes whether the extent of the scarrification in the subdomain is worth the holistic solution. I hope arithmetic zero isn’t one of the necessary scarrifications, if for nothing else because I’m sure that it’s such a basic concept that once its there it can’t be scarrified.

https://www.vdare.com/articles/vladimir-avdeyev-and-the-russian-revival-of-racial-science

e.g., I’m still trying to determine if Nick has a principled NRx position on nationalism/tribalism. My conception of nationalism/tribalism is similar that of Mencius’s. Paraphrase: nationalism as ideology is the view that members of set x should act collectively to further their particular collective interests; nationalism as act occurs when members of set x act collectively to further their particular collective interests. Against this, Mencius, affirming the consequent, first argues that nationalism is democracy. He then argues that universalism is a sub-type of it, and by implication that nationalism is, therefore, bad. He also seemingly manages to exonerate Jewry in general from being nationalistic, since, supposedly, Reformed and Marxist Jews don’t tend to act at all for or in line with the good of global Jewry (or whatever it’s called) e.g.,
nothing to see here: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1846948754/counterpunchmaga
Now since Mencius’, Nick’s source text, provides no sound position, I ask Nick. His reply: “my answer is: NRx (mainline) is not tribalistic, because Moldbug isn’t.” Obviously. But is tribalism not NRx (mainline)? That is, does NRx exclude, i.e., conflict with in principle, tribalism — as oppose to just not profess it. It’s hard to tell because what NRx means for him is ever evolving and his source text, form what little I read of it, is unclear.

Regarding the specific issue, you ambiguously used “virtue”, and so I imposed a definition to undercut an apparent equivocal argument.

Here is what you said:

“Using involuntary characteristics (i.e. race, geography, sex) as a clue to someone’s potential character or value system is one thing. Holding them up some kind of virtue is setting the bar a little bit low for my tastes.”

I agree that there would be something odd with treating race or sex as (a) a virtue in the sense of a good moral behavior such as prudence or honesty, since race or sex isn’t a behavior. However, treating race or sex as (b) a virtue in the sense of a valuable trait such as beauty or youth is not odd.

You argument could be:

1. In general, seeing involuntary characteristics as valuable is silly; accordingly, thinking that person Y has the virtuous trait of e.g., being handsome (characterized in terms of symmetry) would be below you. This is ridiculous.
2. In general, seeing involuntary characteristics as morally valuable behaviors is silly; accordingly, thinking that person X is a good-acting citizen on account of not being congenitally disabled would be silly. This is a reasonable position, but it’s fallacious because no one treats biological race, sex, etc. as an act or behavior.
3. Seeing involuntary characteristics as valuable is silly only when these characteristics are e.g., sex, kinship, age, inherited non-behavioral phenotype; accordingly, preferring to shack up with with a hot 20 year old chick over a 70 year old geezer is silly. Pure Lunacy.

But of course, you imagine that you mean something else. You don’t like the idea of a society e.g., extolling as a valuable commodity “diversity”, let alone homogeneity. But this is merely a collective version of 1/3. A society might sacralize virtus or prudence (along the lines of 2) or Youth or Whiteness (along the line of 2/3). When doing so, it just sees these qualities as good things.

If you only want to see voluntary characteristics as good or valuable, that’s fine. It’s still lunacy.

“I do get the feeling that you’re ever so slightly out of your depth here,”

The commentators are very clever here, no doubt. But systemic philosophy is better realized in plain as possible speech. This allows for ready identification of problematic conceptualizations.

I do get the feeling that you’re ever so slightly out of your depth here, Chuckles, given that in the first two sentences you’re not only equivocating (“virtue” has other meanings beside “moral excellence,” although that’s irrelevant because your statement would still be wrong), confusing a descriptive statement with a prescriptive one and also attempting to attach some ideological relevance to an empirical observation.

Oh, and there are people who “understand characteristics such as race, geography, sex to be moral excellences”. People have been doing it for millennia. The Justice for Trayvon crowd were doing it, too (most of them were black. Think it’s a coincidence?) They regarded his blackness as a virtue. He pursued a life of crime, had gangster fantasies and slammed someone’s head into the pavement? That’s okay, he’s black, therefore one of us, which trumps all other considerations.

Everyone I’ve seen exhibiting this worldview is either degenerate and/or displays the characteristics of low intelligence (i.e. low income, criminality, high time preference, Malthusian breeding practices, obviously self-destructive lifestyle choices etc.)

I fail to see how pointing this out makes one a “Libertarian/Randian,” much less a lunatic.

PS. The rest of your post isn’t worth addressing because it’s irrelevant to anything I had to say, although I should point out that calling the “normal one” (whatever that is) “sensible” presupposes that there’s a “non-sensible” argument that could have been chosen otherwise, which contradicts your argument.

Since I’m American I wish this to apply universally – but only to Americans. **

**I’ve strove with Arabs and I’ll OTOH all I fucking want.

“Before a vending machine can be tipped over, you need a few good shoves as it wobbles back and forth. It seems as though it has reached the tipping point.” [[=== and this unfortunately about sums up the outward policy of the dominant Jewish leading “lights” in America especially and for that part the West. $100 Trillion USD ain’t coming back, pornography as a utility second only to the electricity it rides isn’t a sin washed out with words, money, prayer. Feminism’s embrace of abortion as it’s Eucharist and the severe damage to the family. The destruction of our laws to be replaced by an insane Kritarchy [rule of judges]. The perverse turn the New Deal took from powerful administrative tools for good into HARM and PROFIT from a motive of MALICE. The porno idiocracy that is media/entertainment. The ruining of the Blacks 1965 chances – what they really wanted as late as the Clinton housing boom is the American Dream and that’s all the Blacks wanted – if you want a list of indictments in America there we are.

And yet names not groups. Genocidal idiocies are 20th century and it’s time to bid farewell. Besides if you waste effort, time, risk, men, resources, focus on taking out groups you will reliably completely miss the actual problem aka the “guilty”. You’ll never have enough time and bullets for the ones you must get that also deserve it, so pass by on productive “innocents”. A formula for successful war, conquest, administration since all time. Had the Nazi’s not sent Himmler and his assassins into the Ukraine and USSR it would have been as passive as France. This is the universal opinion of the Wehrmacht Officers who recalled of course being greeted with Bread and Salt.

Had Hitler succeeded within 15-20 years the post war Nazi intellectuals would have been bemoaning that they killed the wrong Jews.

And there are plenty of other group indictments to be handed out if that’s the route, including certainly the insane and degenerate Tidewater aristocracy. New England’s crimes and madness presently afflicting us need no repeating again. The Sons of the South here need to know as well that left to their own devices once they move beyond tools, work, valor their politics of leadership elected or selected will follow the same dismal path it’s been on since Polk died. Jefferson Davis should have been shot dead and deposed by Saint Robert E. Lee and if he had lived Jackson probably either would have…or supported such. You.Suck.At.Picking.Leaders.Cuz.Yu.Pick.Pimp-Ass-Preachers-Like_clinton-Huckabee.

You suck at picking leaders Johnny Reb. SUCK.

I’d get started on me fellow Catholics in America especially the prelates but that’s like pissing on a passed out wino in the street at this point.

I can go on and on. So we’re all you see the suck-ass-bitch-peasant banished children of Eve. Cuz we lack leaders.

You want a unified field theory and = Jews?

Then we’re all Jewish Biatch.

The one’s that aren’t fall from Jewry, which is tribal relative to European groups.

We have two errors:

1. the WN can’t see the individuals from the clan; thus they can’t distinguish between Jews as a group, a super organism, and Jews as a set of individuals, many of whose lineages are on the way out of the tribe and whom aren’t particularly attached to it.
2. the Anglo-individualists can’t see the clan from the individuals; thus, they can’t see how Jewry — Jew Inc. — could be hyper tribal when many individual lineages are pealing off from the core and when many nominal Jews just don’t care.

The question stands: Is Jew Inc., which is bhumiputra par excellence — not sons of the earth, but chosen — unNRx. This Jew Inc: //bjpa.org/Publications/downloadPublication.cfm?PublicationID=4497

If not I will assume that WN Inc., etc. — were they to exist — would not be.

How is it that you can’t give me a positional statement?