Unspoken Agendas

Zombie proposes a key to contemporary American politics: White liberals despise black people and can’t admit it. This is smart conservative jiu jitsu rather than anything remotely neoreactionary, but as a wedge to lever things apart, it has some intriguing potential. The central claim of a carefully-elaborated argument:

White progressives believe that black people are too dumb to make rational decisions on their own and too uncouth to behave civilly. So the progressive urge is to heap rules upon rules to control blacks and render them harmless to themselves and others. At the same time, progressives are terrified of being perceived as racist. So they hit upon a solution: Make rules which restrict everyone‘s freedoms, even though the progressives are actually targeting African-Americans. The collateral damage in this cynical equation — law-abiding citizens of all ethnicities — erroneously assume that the intrusive rules are aimed at them. But they’re missing the point: Progressives don’t enjoy restricting their own freedoms along with everyone else’s, but can conceive of no other legal mechanism to deal with what they see as misbehaving blacks while still appearing to be race-neutral.

ADDED: PJM apparently going all-in with this meme — “But [Obama and Kerry] do — and here’s the irony in Obama’s case — have the traditional white man’s view of that same Arab world — to wit, Arabs are crazy and primitive.” We’re the true anti-racists!

March 16, 2014admin 24 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations , Pass the popcorn


24 Responses to this entry

  • Igitur Says:

    Quick, unrelated provocations. (I’ve arrived to the conclusion I’m no true neoreactionary, so I don’t think I will be actually be developing any of these).

    1) Christopher Alexander as reactionary prototype? (Architectural) pattern languages as rational (Enlightenment) decompositions of Tradition that can be re-operationalized?

    2) What kind of (local in time and space) tradition is this “normcore” buzzword trying to reckon with? “Nondeterministic, situational, adaptable”, they say; this is counter-enlightenment if you ask me.



    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 3:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • peppermint Says:

    This is crazy. Do you have any progressive friends? It’s a religion to them, and they really do believe it. Do you honestly think progressives like laws that disproportionately affect Blacks?

    This isn’t about progressives, it’s about conservatives.

    This is what Fox News conservatives think. And they talk about Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the freedom to violate other people’s freedom of association, and progressives point out that by their actions they show that they secretly despise Blacks, and then they write 5000 word essays about why they’re not racist.

    The reactionary view is to say, yes, we are racist. Since it was impossible to distribute and develop racist literature prior to the Internet, and young White men didn’t really care as much because they were doing pretty okay prior to this economic malaise, the reactionary view could not have been developed until the late 2000s.


    Puzzle Pirate (@PuzzlePirate) Reply:

    Not sure if troll or just so bad she’s not even wrong.

    “Since it was impossible to distribute and develop racist literature prior to the Internet”

    It was here where I smelled troll. You can’t possibly believe this.


    Stirner (@heresiologist) Reply:

    Peppermint is correct about crimethink being disseminated pre-internet. Books? Yeah, try finding that stuff on the shelves of a chain bookstore. Magazines? Same thing. Media? Mostly network or niche cable networks. The only actual non-moderate views were featured as the crazy guests on daytime talk shows.

    Yes, it was out there in fringe publications, special order books, small subscription newsletters and magazines. But you had to go out of your way to find it. You also had to worry what the neighbors might think with that stuff showing up in mail.

    The internet makes thoughtcrime a click away, and completely available unfiltered. Now you can even accidentally come across thoughtgrime, or have it shoved in your face in the comments section of mainstream newspapers.

    Now you kids get off my damn lawn!


    Dan Reply:

    Peppermint’s claim misses the point: one side is making rules which keep blacks in check. Such as: (1) protecting abortion, (2) curfews, (3) zoning restrictions, (4) gun control (should really be number 1), (5) powerful police in the cities. Which side is that? The left of course!

    Democrats run the show completely in all major cities, and 100% of big city mayors are Democrats. Who is it that is cracking down on crime?

    Conservatives are often on the other side of these issues, because they live in suburbia and don’t get it.


    admin Reply:

    Yes, that’s Zombie’s key point. Progressives end up responsible for controlling urban vibrancy, and it drives them nuts.


    tryptophan Reply:

    But surely you know a little about other countries where the patterns are completely different. Guns are tightly controlled in many countries which are entirely, or historically entirely white.

    Peppermint is right, “they’re the real racists” is a common right wing argument. Like most mainstream right arguments it has a grain of truth but it has never worked and never will. (The grain of truth here is the kind of argument about agency that SGW makes below, its true, but univeralists aren’t thinking like that).

    P.S. can we get over calling our opponents leftists, everyone who isn’t NRx is a leftist relative to us, and there is no absolute centre to political scales.


    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Unless NRx means all reactionaries everywhere, there are people who aren’t NRx who aren’t to your left.

    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 3:39 pm Reply | Quote
  • anonymous Says:

    Off topic – media reporting that the pilot of the missing malaysian airlines jet, was an “anti-government fanatic” who is pictured wearing a t-shirt that said “democracy is dead”




    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 6:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • northanger Says:

    Proxy warfare.


    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 6:44 pm Reply | Quote
  • SGW Says:

    To a point I agree that the attitude of progressives is racist.

    Progressives quite clearly don’t attribute agency to Africans. When it comes to their assumptions regarding the degree of agency blacks are capable of exercising it seems that they rank them below dogs. Dogs are capable of improving their lot in life through pattern-recognition, to a point, and their instincts generally seem to be well adapted to the modern environment, Africans apparently can’t do this and are entirely at the mercy of their dysfunctional instincts and the hostile environment created by agency possessing white people.

    Conservatives treat Africans as human beings, albeit as low-quality humans, much to the dismay of progressives who can only love them as long as they can hold them to a standard of behavior befitting a subcanine creature. Admittedly, when souls get into the picture many conservatives also seem to hold little regard for their or anyone’s agency for that matter. Both conservatives and progressives appear to believe in the doctrine of total depravity, progressives true to their radical puritan roots just seem to take it a step further.

    It is only a matter of time until Africans (and thought-criminals) are treated in the same manner as these unfortunate elderly people: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2580636/Read-stories-secret-courts-imprison-elderly-care-homes-against-weep.html.


    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 7:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • northanger Says:

    Why yes, progressives have dog whistles and need to use them more effectively. Dog whistles, unfortunately, are best used with homogenized groups: one dog whistle to rule them all. But what makes a whistle whistle?


    northanger Reply:

    psst. {a lot of hot air}


    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 7:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • Shlomo Maistre Says:

    Apologies for the length.

    I wouldn’t say that white liberals or Progressives “despise black people and can’t admit it” for the simple reason that to despise assumes a personal relationship which they don’t have with blacks and for the deeper reason that such a characterization does not begin to reveal the profound wickedness of Progressivism.

    I’d say that Progressivism (perhaps mostly inadvertently) holds mankind to be evil as a consequence of the religion’s essential G-dlessness. Progressivism proclaims itself free from religious belief while venturing forth a position on the metaphysical (a stance on the metaphysical AKA a religious view) that denies any potential for divinity or force or essence outside the material domain. Since this religion is as juvenile as it is unaware of itself (pretty much completely), Progressivism contains within it a spirituality so degenerate to be aptly characterized as demonic.

    Progressives believe group differences are primarily if not entirely attributable to culture. This is the tabula rasa view of the human mind whereby man acts not so much according to his nature but in response to others’ actions and other external factors. Illustrating why one cannot believe in both tabula rasa and original sin demonstrates to my own satisfaction the wickedness of Progressivism – so how bout we do dat.

    Broadly speaking, Progressivism is the intellectual descendent of Protestantism. Protestants mostly consider original sin and concupiscence to be indistinguishable, while Catholics believe that Baptism eliminates original sin, but at best only mitigates the effects of concupiscence. Therefore Catholicism holds that men inherit not so much Adam’s particular guilt so much as the fallen nature that resulted from it. By removing baptism from the path to salvation, Protestantism denies man the ability to change his own destiny and even his own nature (as at least he himself understands it, which is no small matter). But if belief in true religion cannot alter one’s destiny then there is no spirituality worth a damn.

    Which is the point.

    Protestantism’s “total depravity” is the ancestor of Progressivism’s “culture” – both prevent man from mitigating the degree of his failings by his own volition and even preclude in a fundamental sense man’s ability to do good for himself and by himself (not as in “alone” but as in “of” himself). Hence Progressives’ relentless habit of marking up achievement to some sort of anti-social movement or social construct.

    Unhappy that you are not sufficiently skinny/rich/independent/powerful/respected? “Wahhh! Racism/patriarchy/colonialism/corporations/oppression/sexism/the media!”

    Indeed, Progressivism is in some ways basically anti-social by design, which explains its habit of cloaking its creations in shamelessly false garb. There are few sophistries as anti-social as social science, social contract, and social justice – to name but a few.


    Alex Reply:

    Progressivists believe in both powerlessness and perfectibilism as and when it suits them. It’s all about “free, informed choice” in the realm of sexual ethics; but it’s “he didn’t really have a choice” when it comes to criminal responsibility. Society/culture makes us who we are and is responsible for all our ills; yet by implementing structural change we can eliminate social injustice.


    Shlomo Maistre Reply:

    An apt point. Progressives contend that man is powerless by virtue of ever more external forces (patriarchy/media/discrimination/religion etc) but perfectible by virtue of the single, unitary external force that is government or, perhaps more accurately, the will of the people, since to a true Progressive there is no problem of governance that cannot be well addressed by voting it solved.


    Posted on March 16th, 2014 at 10:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Ex-pat in Oz Says:

    I didn’t find Zombie’s argument as convincing, as sympathetic as I might have been to it. I’d ascribe the “keep blacks sorted” as more of a side benefit than a core motivation. I think the Cathedral aesthetics tend to drive these social justice antics more than some defensive instinct.

    What I did find interesting was the consideration of some HBD juju in a tradcon environment like PJ Media (I don’t think Z’s down with the NRx/DE– but maybe I’m wrong).

    As the institutional Right disintegrates, there will be an acceleration of the Right Wing disaspora– with more and more inevitably washed up on the shores of NRx.


    Orthodox Reply:

    Did anyone catch this video? The Leftist coalition is a weak one with gaping holes just asking for wedges to be driven into them. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/12/21/Al-Sharpton-s-Chicago-Town-Hall-Erupts-into-Revolt-against-Machine-Politics

    Racism is dead. Look at California where the Asians are killing a Hispanic attempt to bring back Affirmative Action. Progressives aren’t closet racists, just the head of a political Yugoslavia. Just ask why all these white progressives think they should be running the show, given that they’re only 50% of the left. Use their own propaganda against them and point out their hypocrisy. Point out every progressive policy that hurts one of their factions.


    admin Reply:

    “Point out every progressive policy that hurts one of their factions.” — While careful not to push it to such a point that a conservative might win.


    Posted on March 17th, 2014 at 1:07 am Reply | Quote
  • Arc Says:

    I dunno exactly what your point is by bringing this up. He supported a centrist liberal politician who has been repressed by the government, and his shirt reflects the fact that he thinks “democracy is dead” because this centrist liberal politician is being repressed.


    admin Reply:

    Yes (a nothingburger).


    northanger Reply:

    {i could say, libertarian asshole racist fucktoid. or make some type of declarative statement about future ass kicking. but, ass kissing would be good (left cheek, of course). so. for now we’ll just let things be, calm down. go get a strawberry shake. have a great day!}


    Posted on March 17th, 2014 at 5:41 am Reply | Quote
  • The Revolution: Affirmative Action in Education, and Everything Else | iParallax Says:

    […] “Unspoken Agendas” – Zombie proposes a key to contemporary American politics: White liberals despise black people and can’t admit it. This is smart conservative jiu jitsu rather than anything remotely neoreactionary, but as a wedge to lever things apart, it has some intriguing potential. The central claim of a carefully-elaborated argument: […]

    Posted on March 17th, 2014 at 9:49 pm Reply | Quote
  • RiverC Says:

    This is true, I figured it out awhile ago, and it applies to all special interest groups that belong to the progressive pantheon, not just the blacks. Blacks rank perhaps lowest in this ranking (along with Jews – despite the judaic-ness of progressivism they are really ‘cold’ on Israel) and this is why the true colors are showing. Neoconservatism (observe the pattern of former Jewish liberals) is a rightward schism, partly, of Jews recognizing they were on the bottom of the totem pole, usually through the Left’s treatment of Israel in the USA. Expect a reasonably large rightward schism of reasonably conservative (in some attitudes) blacks when it is fully understood that the Left’s quote-unquote love of counter culture doesn’t really apply to rap (take for instance M.Cyrus’ possible mockery of the ‘twerk’ as an instance of the early signs of this schism.) Of course I’ve known a number of Black Christians in my days and they were always sorely divided on their support for the Left; typically rationalist-atheist type blacks trend hard right and are notably rightwing even if they move among the Left’s darllings, the Black Nationalists. However, among my Black buddies some tacked leftward and became ‘allies’ – i.e. wedded to a higher rung in the totem pole (gays/transgenders) while others who were more conservative in their attitude could not even for brotherly love adopt such a counter-moral stance. These types will be the first to go in a major way (for a number of years I’ve caught wind of stirrings to this effect. We don’t hear of it because these stirrings don’t all go out and vote Republican, so they’re ignored by the media complex.)

    The difference here that Peppermint is missing is a difference in secondary degrees:

    1. Conservatives are actually the most really liberal people in existence. Many are truly colorblind and judge people on individual merit. If this creates any skew whiteward, it is merely because both cultural and genetic factors favor white competency. This is not the work of these conservatives, who really are not respecters of persons in this sense.

    2. Progressives really are ‘racist’ in the way that word of propaganda was originally structured by the communists and used. They truly have a unique disdain and despite for ‘others’ without any reference to concrete information about what their otherness actually consists of (genetic differences, cultural conflicts, moral disagreements, etc.) It’s a complicated relationship, and it is a charged ‘hate link’ which flip flops between idolatry (ideation) and extreme disgust. Women like Obama’s mom who went with Big Blacks did so more because they were worshiping at the altar of Otherness (Blackness in this case) than for any real love of the men they were supplicating. Anyone who spends too much time attacking Jews or Blacks to me is a leftist hybrid, a chimera. (This just may be my Eastern-ness at work though)

    3. The reactionary view, distinct again, is conditioned by both realism regarding race and by history of conflict fueling general caution and distrust between groups. Reactionary distrust of blacks is due to social conflicts and (now, more clearly than ever) ‘realism’ regarding blacks as a group. This view is also ‘racist’, though take note it doesn’t really have that hate link that the ethno-socialists and progressives might entertain. The progressives have the most twisted and perverse relationship with otherness, the EN’s just have a strong, reflexive distrust and a dislike of modern ‘civil’ society which is pluralistic. the reactionary view is still racist, for sure, but I’ve noticed in it (despite what Brooks Bayne may claim!) a lack of emotion concerning these various ‘others’ – difference and incompatibility is taken as a fact, not needed to be sensationalized, and this position is the most odious one possible to the progressive, since it both incorporates naked admission of what they fear to be true or, as Idealists, wish to make untrue through word and love magic, and has a dispassion that makes it immune from their favored methods of intimidation.

    Then again I might be talking out of my rear here, anyone may feel free to totally dismantle this comment.


    Posted on March 18th, 2014 at 2:58 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment