Lily White Daughter, Deep Black Boyfriend:
Knowledge as an Infra-Rational Weapon
Racially conscious Whites of reproductive age who describe themselves as not racist are frequently asked The Question: “Would you be upset if one day your daughter brought home a Black boyfriend?” Because liberals and victims of their indoctrination equate White racial consciousness with psychopathic racism, and because they equate White denials of racism with malevolent mendacity, the expectation is always that the question will expose concealed racist attitudes by causing detectable discomfort or equivocation.
The politically correct responses to this question are, of course, the mock-offended “I wouldn’t mind at all!”; the pious “I would respect her choice”; or the emphatically masochistic and joyfully suicidal “I would say, ‘Good on you!’” A progressive, enlightened White person, as defined by the politico-academico-media complex today, is, by definition, placidly tolerant, solicitously non-racist, adamantly anti-racist, completely unaware of his race, and, most importantly, instantly baffled by the idea that Whiteness may have any value whatsoever, except for a few Third Reich lunatics and those pitchfork-wielding, gun-toting, pickup-driving, Bible-thumping, oligophrenic, periodontitic, slack-jawed, baseball-capped, bare-chested, jug-eared rednecks we occasionally see on film and television, living in dilapidated cabins in the mountains of the American South. Those who do not conform to this definition are acutely aware of the fact that this is the yardstick by which their level of social acceptability and employability are measured, and that any sign of non-conformity will result in their being lumped with the above-mentioned types, with the consequent loss of friends, loss of employment, loss of family, and maybe even loss of life.
Under such circumstances, it is not surprising that a racially conscious White person will hesitate to give a straight answer to The Question, for the innate human need for self-preservation, acceptance, belonging, and socially-legitimized self-esteem will automatically trigger inhibitory biochemical secretions in this White person’s brain. Only a proud pariah, or a person secure within an alternative support network, is likely to be able to provide a true and honest answer without flinching.
Were it not because The Question is a tactic of intimidation in a racist war waged against the White man by radical Marxist utopians and self-serving ethnic activists, it would otherwise be amazing that we should be expected to justify ourselves over the matter of our own existence and continuity as a subspecies of human. Why should we have to justify the choices upon which our very existence depends? And why should we even care that people who already hate the fact that we exist, or who see us as an obstacle to their utopian dreams of totalitarian biological homogeneity, may have a problem?
I argued in a previous article that, because we are dealing with infra-rational processes, one of the main challenges for us in the enemy’s war against Whiteness is that this is not a war that can be won by logical argument alone. It is necessary to appeal to the aforementioned innate human needs using means that operate at an infra-rational level. Style was one means — specifically style that is informed by ideology. Knowledge is another.
This might appear a contradiction, since we equate knowledge with rational processes, but the apparent contradiction vanishes when we consider that knowledge can operate at an infra-rational level by the mere fact of its possession. When one has the sense that one knows one’s subject, that one’s choices and attitudes are well informed by, and consistent with, empirical data and serious science, and that, therefore, one will be able to acquit oneself well when challenged in a debate, one tends to feel confident and relaxed and generally good about oneself. And this self-confidence is perhaps even more important than being right, as the sad reality is that observers of a debate are more likely to be convinced by a confidently and calmly delivered bad argument than by a diffidently and nervously delivered good one. This is why The Question is asked: the enemy knows that, however difficult to rebut the morality and the science supporting our position, because political incorrectness can have disastrous consequences for the heretic, deployment of The Question is likely to cause the kind of stammering circumlocutions, contradictory qualifications, and unconvincing platitudes that will subconsciously but immediately discredit the heretic, and thereby his position. Observers notice the discomfort and think, “Hm. He’s cacking himself. It must be because he knows he’s talking nonsense.”
Therefore, if it is important that we possess the body of knowledge that will enable us to successfully refute the enemy’s arguments, it is not because we will ever turn them into apostates, nor because our data and our logic will convince observers of a debate on the value of Whiteness of the correctness of our position; but because observers will be more receptive to the side that looks better to them. The enemy is extremist, heavily indoctrinated, and / or selfishly motivated, so they are beyond convincing; and few observers are ever likely to have the patience to independently verify abstruse scientific data, which they have been told by the enemy are all immorally biased, deviously contrived, and methodologically flawed anyway. Moreover, whatever the data, apparently sound arguments and interpretations can be contrived to support any imaginable position. Hence, the deciding factor for observers when choosing sides in a debate is often much more basic than we would like to think, for they will first and foremost look at (a) which party looks the most confident, and (b) whether association with that party is likely to enhance their self-esteem.
This is because choosing sides in an issue of this nature means choosing a group identity, and a group identity entails a wide- and far-ranging series of consequences, affecting many vital aspects of a person’s life. It is not a minor decision, and, therefore, the pay-off for adopting one group identity versus another has to be obvious, immediate, and/or vastly superior. What is more, the choice is often made subconsciously, on the basis of temperament, pre-existing biases and proclivities, and the need for self-preservation, rather than through conscious reasoning and research. This is why, unless one is not already pre-disposed to be an obnoxious contrarian or a proud pariah, becoming a politically incorrect heretic involves voluminous reading and long periods of reflection. This is also why humans have a tendency to jump on bandwagons, however irrational, banal, or deleterious to the jumper’s long-term interests: power and success are always appealing, and people tend to want to be a part of a powerful and successful phenomenon.
People will sooner commit suicide than die of embarrassment!
If European man is to survive as a population and as a subspecies of human, then; if he is not to be diluted into a uniform mass of generic brown humans — all identical, all replaceable, none better or worse than the other; if he is not to be crunched by the wheels of the Marxist machine that exists to create a totalitarian society of minimum variation and maximum conformity; our strategies and tactics must be in accord with the often infra-rational ways in which humans operate. And this means knowing how to use rational tools and processes to make our proposition more appealing to the infra-rational mind — the instinctive part of the mind that causes people to quickly choose sides in an issue and believe one person rather than another. Conversely, this means knowing know how they are used by the enemy to achieve the results that work for them. Mass movements of the past understood this well, and the soft totalitarians in power today, those who maintain the “dictatorship of well-being,” understand it too.
Thus, when asked, “Would you mind if one day your daughter brought home a Black boyfriend,” do not attempt to appease the enemy with platitudes — no one will buy them; do not regurgitate statistics from textbooks of cognitive psychology and physical anthropology — these data only serves to advance science and guide public policy and is otherwise too abstract for the venal public to be bothered with; do not circumbilivaginate — equivocation is tantamount to admitting that you are wrong and that you know it; and do not feel you have to explain your preference — it is your daughter, your family, your life, and your future, not theirs; and if they — people who hate you and whom you do not hold in high esteem anyway — require an explanation for something as basic and as primal as the fact that you would rather recognize yourself in your parents and in your children; that you feel more comfortable among people who are physiognomically, intellectually, and temperamentally similar to you; and that you derive a greater sense of belonging when you see that you and your relatives are all part of the same family, there are plenty of textbooks out there explaining why this is so.
Perhaps, we should ask, instead, why are some Whites so full of pathological self-hatred, so eager to believe their racist detractors, so contemptuous of their own value, that they are not satisfied with signing up for a voluntary extinction movement, but they also want everyone else who looks like them to join them inside a glass display unit in a 22nd century Paleontological museum. Are they mentally ill?