Thursday, 29 October 2009

How to Commit Genocide

Now, my brethren in darkness, it is time to let a little of the light of reality into our dark existence, not so much as to put us to fright, timid and truth-shy beasts that we are, but just enough to give us a glimpse of our surroundings, so that, for a short while only, and as a swansong of the last traces of feeling and reason that we might possess, we shall catch a glimpse also of ourselves. Doubtless you will feel somewhat afeared by the title of my address; but you ought not to worry yourselves overmuch: I promise that, when you have eased yourselves back into your dark and dreamy world, you will have in your minds a vision of genocide which will appear to you to be quite lovely, certainly not something about which to be concerned, but rather a process in which you will find great hope and for the furtherance whereof you will see your moral duty. You will celebrate its occurrence, you will praise its agents, and you will damn and vilify its enemies. I know this is how you will see it because that is already how you see it, and this little spell in the light will not change you. You are part of something great and terrible. Your near-insignificance as individuals, and your decrepitude as persons, is made sacrosanct in the impersonal greatness of the collective deed.
     I will not give you a step-by-step guide to genocide; I shall present to you simply an ethos on its method: how to commit it in a manner as befits us as sophisticated beasts. I cannot deny that, at the outset, “genocide” will likely seem to you — by connotation — an odd word to use for so hopeful and soothing a process of dissolution as we intend and wherein we are now taking so happy a part. It is a word which you find dreadful, or rather, it is the connotive meanings that it inflames in your minds which appall you. But genocide itself, and its denotation alone — that is to say, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a people or a race — is something which strikes both you and me as a happy thing. You ought not to recoil at this breath of honesty; for we are all of the same opinion, you and I, and in the end for us — for us modern and sophisticated men — morality, good and evil, value and disvalue, all come down to mere opinion, and mere opinion to mere motive, and mere motive to material force, and so on, until we end in primal, meaningless, and unintelligible matter.
     If anyone were to say that the simple definition of genocide which I lay out here is mere straw, unwelcome fodder for lawyers, or that “genocide” simply does not denote the deliberate and systematic destruction of a people or a race through just any means, and especially not through our sublime method, but rather that an act or a process of genocide qualifies as such if and only if it is committed through some particular means as decided and specified by some legal or bureaucratic body, the United Nations perhaps, or by a body of scholars and lawyers, then that would be splendid, marvellous, a devil-sent gift of sophistication. For, naturally, by our ethos, the last thing we should want is for anyone to believe that we are actually “committing genocide” in any terms by which we might be condemned. We should hope, on the contrary, that people will believe our process to be a delightful spring-season of humanity and an opportunity for universal love; anything but genocide. The perfect, most sublime method of genocide would be one whereof the occurrence would be denied honestly by everyone. It is that to which everyone of us ought to dedicate himself, be he hopeless of absolute perfection in this imperfect world. It is only here and now, my dark comrades, that I am putting it to you as it is. Here also, if you insist on clinging to a cloak of darkness, you may call it whatever you like, but it matters not at all to the method and its realisation, except on what we might call the positive side. I am not here to tell you how you ought to feel about a particular disturbance of air, a particular material sign. I should not waste my time. We of all people, here and now, ought to appreciate just how far from reality all our words and connotations can set us, if we wish it, and how useful that proves to be. The discomfort of the light will not last long, and we may as well bear it for a little while; but if you insist, if you really cannot drag yourself, just for a moment, from the dark and dishonest place in which we all prefer to dwell, then you can call the process that we have in mind “enlightened melting” or “genogenesis” or “vibrant diversification”, or whatever pleases you. It matters not. Here, by the denotation I have set out and by honesty’s demand, I shall call it genocide. I am not here to argue with you. I am here to tell you about it; and the only aim whereof I can be confident in addressing you now is that you will surely admit at least, whether you shy from all else, that my — our — method of so-called genocide is a sublime one as befits the times.
     It is an evolution of the method of genocide. We do not use bludgeons or machetes, we do not use rifles or grenades, we do not use poison-gas or disease — we use marketing and hope. It is an evolution from crudity to sophistication. Each method is more sophisticated than the last, and, at each stage, men are further removed from the consciousness of their deeds, a consciousness which tends to come by way of connotive meanings — whereby images and impressions match expectations of what it means to be engaged in something. Our stage is the most sublime; for it puts men at the furthest remove. And, for us moderns, the furthest remove is next to godliness.
     We have touched on the matter of connotation, and we shall address it a little further, and shall continue to do so throughout, since it is by connotation that we marketers of unreality, we demonic sloganeers, bind you all. By our method, genocide can in principle occur without suffering, and indeed it can in principle be a pleasant experience for all; for every person of the people which is to cease to exist as a people may also desire it. If we sell it well, almost everyone will desire it. Yet this is quite against the connotive meanings that most people have for it. To most people, genocide connotes bad things, and therein it finds its overwhelming meaning for them, but if what is happening under our process appears to them to be something good, then it does not appear to them to be genocide. Now, if one sets about the deliberate and systematic destruction of a people or a race by whatever means, then it is genocide in the denotive meaning as we here understand it. If, however, one sets about the deliberate and systematic destruction of a people or a race by our means, by our sublime method, then it is not genocide in the connotive meanings by which most persons understand it. Thus, it is the case that, by our method, we can commit genocide in the denotive meaning, and yet we can expect to find that this process will not appear to most persons to be genocide, since they are committed to understanding it by the connotive meanings which are quite unnecessary or irrelevant to the process. In the end, it is all just a quibble over words — along with the little matter of the systematic destruction of peoples. So that, briefly and loosely stated, is an introduction to our method of genocide. Let the primitives use their machetes and their poison-gases; we have a more sophisticated and more humane method.
     So how, in a nutshell, do we commit genocide according to our method? Well, here it is: We take a people and make it a non-people in the eyes of most of its members, and, since no genocide can be committed against a non-people, then, in the eyes of most of the members of that people, no genocide can be committed against it. We present to it all manner of happy visions of the future, and we can even brighten the image of the future by dimming the image of the past. To the cattle that we have created — yes, especially the ones who have been through our educational institutions! — connotations are everything and mother-wit nothing. That is why they seek so-called lifestyles, these men without culture, and that is why we can sell them anything, even the destruction of their own race; for remember: we are salesmen, marketers — committing genocide: we call it celebrating diversity! At all times, the process is to be made to appear a positive one, indeed one in which a man ought to feel proud and almost holy to take part, and, since we are dealing with modern demotic man — the pig who demands his swill and calls it liberty — the process must have its pleasures and comforts. The crucial step is the first one: if we can persuade the majority of a people that it is not in fact a people, then we have already committed ideal genocide against it; the rest — the physical-biological genocide — should follow in due course and without much fuss. And it is fuss and suffering and slaughter that we wish — as humanitarians — to keep to a minimum.
     It ought to go without saying that destroying whole nations composed of tens of millions of persons would present certain logistical difficulties by the old and crude methods of mass-murder; and it could hardly go unnoticed. But who would be so crude to do such a thing nowadays, when there is at hand an ethos and a method as sublime as ours? Everyone of us ought to see that it is far better that genocide be conducted in a more peaceful way: by mixing peoples out of existence. Hatred naturally plays a fundamental and systematic part. The more men who can be taught to hate their own race and people, the more of us there will be to impel the process of their dissolution.
     The few amongst the targeted people who object to the genocide being committed against it will be put through the indignity of having to demonstrate and justify the right of their own people to continue to exist as a distinct people, which of course will be in vain, for how could such a thing be taken to be demonstrated and justified in an atmosphere of virulent hostility — wherein no lie or denial or vilification is too grand — and against the very perpetrators who have the appetite and the power to determine the genocide in the first place? This indignity will itself demoralise and cower and depress any opposition, as well as providing us with a spectacle to savour. And the better their case, and the finer their arguments, the more we shall hate and condemn them. And to their entreaties, we must remain pitilessly dismissive, whilst we put ourselves on the side of good and them on the side of evil..
     If we proceed in right manner, that is to say, with the sophistication that is our pride, then there really is no need for all that nasty business which appears as a necessary condition of genocide in the connotation-addled minds of most people. We sophisticates know that genocide does not necessitate murder or widespread suffering; on the contrary, we know that in principle it can be a pleasurable and enriching process for all. It can be simply the deliberate and systematic mixing and dissolving of a people out of existence. Certainly, in practice, there will be a few recalcitrant knuckle-draggers, as we like to call them, who will deplore the process; but for them, and for their sentimental whining and pathetic suffering, we can have nothing but hatred and pitiless contempt. We can never guarantee that the process might not go awry from its spotless way; but, on the whole, we can expect, we can hope, that genocide will be a jolly good affair with no unsightly incidents. But do you wish to know what is the most exquisite aspect of using other peoples as the tools by which to destroy a targeted people? Well, savour this, my sybarites: any resistance by any members of the targeted people against the tools of its genocide will likely and understandably be one of physical aggression; the resistance will be crude and thus visible to all eyes, and thereagainst we and our method will remain innocent and unseen. Here the “smashing of the crematoria”, as it were, will appear an act of evil, and the rebuilding of “them”, a return to goodness and progress. Are we not supremely-crafted beasts?
     Ideal genocide is reversible, however, though is unlikely to be reversed; for once the spirit of a people has been dispelled and depressed into the earth, it is very hard to reanimate it again. Physical-biological genocide is not reversible, of course, at least not without the most advanced technological intervention and the will to use it, and it is highly unlikely that anyone would trouble themselves to that end once a people or race has gone. If that is so, as it seems, then we can say that, once the physical-biological heritage of a people or a race, having taken thousands of years to come to a unique form, has been destroyed, it is near-impossible to bring it back again. So, with all that in mind, and if we are to remain faithful to our genocidal aim and push it through to the end, we must be careful to make sure that between the first stage of our method and the last, that is to say, between ideal genocide and physical-biological genocide, no spirit of the people is allowed to reanimate. Any little sign that it might do so ought to be regarded as an instance of great and looming evil and must be met with the most outrageous contempt and hatred. But I have no need to tell you that: you already know it well.
     It is unlikely that anything could stop so artfully-crafted a process as ours. I mean we even have self-declared patriots who love their country so much that they wish to see it turned into another one. How mind-bending is that? But we bend minds, dear brothers in malice, that is our method: we make it almost impossible for a man to think. And what of you so-called conservatives amongst us — what do you wish to preserve? Why, nothing, nothing at all, except your bank-accounts and your marble-topped kitchen-surfaces and the like, and we may even get you to give those up too. You also are men of the left-way, just like the rest of us, but slow on the uptake, heavy of foot, timid of spirit, lumbering in the baggage-train and protecting the flanks as the vanguard of left-progressivism forges on in its march of hatred and destruction. Now and then, a troop of this vanguard will turn back and ride down the column screaming at the stragglers and whipping the strayers back into line. And so you dim little skivvy-conservatives, timid little beasts, offer no effective resistance, just an occasional mutter to be heard, but otherwise frightened into conformity with evil. By awe, you even come to adopt the language and the mannerisms of these magnificent amoral beasts, these march-masters, though never quite with the same enthusiasm, never quite with the same demonic style. And the plebs — the men whom we should like to see rot away now that they have outlived their usefulness, now that we have found our redemption in more interesting and colourful people — what of them? A spent force and a revolting mess! I mean, truly, how could we love men who do not know how to cut an avocado properly, or who prefer malt vinegar to balsamic? These men serve only to dirty the picture in which we would like to frame ourselves.
     We know that a reign of fear is a most effective one, especially when it is given a moral colouring; and through it we can make men in our own image who appear beautiful in our eyes. Burke didn’t know the half of it, no, not even the tenth of it. — “The glory of Europe is extinguished for ever.” — Ha! Glory is well outside its range; grubby, inglorious survival would be a triumph for it. But how could the sage have known? In his day, and for a hundred years and more thereafter, Europe still had an inheritance. Now it is gone, frittered away on indulgences and insane pursuits, on so-called lifestyles for all. Europe, spiritless, listless, debased in its own eyes, sits in the gutter, contemplating sui-genocide. Yet that word cannot be quite right; the personal metaphor cannot quite stand. Strictly we must say that it is unlikely that it is an act of sui-genocide; for it is unlikely that there could have been one appetite for such. Personal metaphors for peoples are useful, but apt to mislead. In a people, the intent lies in some, but not all.
     The question of intent is especially acute with you, my half-mechanical fellows, for what do you intend? Certainly, back in your striving lives, your intentions seem to you good not bad, or rather, they are directed towards the image of the good. Now this image of good may be projected by absolute evil, the total privation of good, to which you will strive nonetheless, all the while congratulating yourselves on your moral propriety. Your whole brute-like existence, my sophisticates, is impressed with images, or idols.
     For those who engage in the process of genocide, there can be primary and secondary intentions, perhaps even more. A man, for instance, may have for his primary intention the creation of a new and happy people, or a stupid one, or any kind, created out of the elements of already-existing peoples. It is indeed a goodly part of our method of genocide to sell the idea of creation rather than that of destruction. Our marketing — pure, sinister, exquisite evil — could be expressed as: We need to destroy ourselves in order to survive and to become greater. Of course it is nonsense — the pronoun in the first clause cannot be the pronoun implied in the second — and we never even express it quite so, but it is in essence what we have been selling by various arguments, usually those invoking competition with other states. What it really means in other words is: Your people must be destroyed and replaced by one better suiting the needs or the desires of the moment. But we sell genogenesis not genocide. Thus, for most men, genocide is a secondary intention, not a primary one, though some may take a malicious delight in carrying out the present task of that intention. The case is similar for murder. A man may have as his primary intention the prevention of a secret becoming known, and so he may carry out the secondary intention of murder to secure that end. He intends murder nonetheless. 
     Our lives are complex webs of intentions, which may prove very hard to unweave for our understanding; and a primary intention can be so overwhelming that one can almost loose sight of the reality of the secondary intention by which one hopes to achieve it. Hardly anyone intends the process of genocide by the whole vision of it; few have the imagination to do so; but all of you, my fallen colleagues, intend your part in it by denotation and by the new positive connotations attached thereto which blind you to the reality of what you are doing. You do not know that you are committing genocide in the connotive meanings thereof simply because you are not in fact committing it as such; for you intend no such thing, that is to say, you intend nothing towards the stock-images by which your understanding of such a process is subverted. And, by concentrating on the positive connotations of creation, you can make the negative connotations of destruction fade from your minds. You are, as one of our slogans has it, always seeking “to think positively”. Certainly it is true that some of the most maniacal and hateful amongst you fill the newspapers and the airwaves with their genocidal desires, about which they are quite open, yet the rest of you — and perhaps these others too — do not have ears or eyes for such things; for your ears and eyes are for connotation-matching. Besides, you are either desirous of the same thing by the primary intention which they sell to you, by some happy image or moral imperative, or you are quite indifferent to its occurrence, willing to go along because that is just the way of things.
     It would be foolish to say that a process is genocide if and only if everyone who takes part therein must intend, or deliberate on, the whole of the process as genocide; for, if that were the case, then we must very much doubt there has ever been a case of it, except in the smallest tribal-groups. It is a partly systematic and partly deliberate process, with ideological, technological, and material conditions being functions of the systematic aspect; and the more it evolves, the less deliberate and the more systematic it becomes, until, in principle at least, and perhaps one day in fact, if our aftercomers ever attain full Enlightenment, there could be a process entirely systematic, and wholly pitiless, thereupon surpassing our definition of genocide. Still, as it stands, we may be proud of the stage we have reached.
     Our worldview, if we can call it that, is a shattered image, and we look through different shards depending on our needs and whims. Unconcerned with rational consistency, free from the desire for wholeness of vision, driven only by utility and appetite, we can bring an argument to bear against one thing which we wish to see destroyed but not against another which we wish to see spared, albeit in the case that the argument applies equally to both. We hold that whatever cannot be defined absolutely by material-objective determination is fair game for destruction, if we have the appetite for it; and it just so happens that in our philosophy, from the purely mechanical and atomistic view, rather than from the formal and holistic view, no complex object of sense-experience can be absolutely defined to its fullest-objective degree by finite minds. The principle of matter is unintelligible and its division without form is arbitrary. Nihilistic scepticism, we must remember, can go all the way, and can be brought down upon reason itself; yet we, for now, can apply it all the way for some things and no way at all for others, depending on our appetite. Upon that which is marked for destruction, our nihilism is let loose without restraint, to its fullest degree, savaging without pity, and even bringing with it a mocking crowd. From that which is to be spared, our nihilism is held at bay, whilst appeals to reasonableness and commonsense are made. Anything whereof we might wish to deny the existence, we can, by a thoroughgoing scepticism, make the defence thereof extremely hard, certainly too hard for the average person, and that is enough for us. It is the mass that carries the day, under our guiding hand. And do not think that commonsense — even of the very commonest sort — must be a sufficient defence in the end, not now that the people have been brought into the political-ideological realm for refitting. And anyone who proves unsuitable for sophistication or recalcitrant in their primitive beliefs, any who “should find no place in our democracy, our modern society, our twenty-first century, etc”, will be discarded as unfit to be part of the demos, as you may witness even now, if you care to look. That is the reality of the world we are creating — no wonder that you care not to see it! 
     The Problem of the Many is for us the solution to all our problems, namely, to everything that stands in our way. Imagine that which we call a forest. Given that it is composed of that which we call trees, it is impossible to say determinately whether it is a forest, whether it is a vast number of forests, or whether it is no forest at all; for there is no absolute-determinate point at which we may say it is one or another as to the material-objective boundaries thereof. Better still: imagine that we admit for a moment the existence of a beech-wood. Imagine further that a beech-tree is removed and a spruce-tree is added. Is it still a beech-wood? Imagine the same happens another time and another time. Is it still a beech-wood? Well, we of all people can call it whatever we like! We could remove every beech-tree, and replace each with a spruce-tree, and still call it a beech-wood; for was there ever in fact a beech-wood or a beech-tree in the first place? It is all just names for us: there are no forms or essences by which our words and concepts can map reality.
     In the final analysis, we constitute the principle for the destruction of everything in the world; but we must begin somewhere, and we begin at the top and work our way down. If we are to dismiss the belief in peoples and races simply because we cannot, as finite minds, draw an absolute-material boundary amongst them, or between them and other things which we do not call peoples and races, just as we cannot draw for any complex object, then we must, if we are to be rationally consistent, deny the existence of forests, tables, automobiles, toenails, humans — in short, every complex object of our world; for the same argumentative principle applies to them all. Now, it must be said, in the light of old philosophy and the principle of the intelligibility of reality, that it is quite unreasonable and quite against commonsense not to believe in such things as trees, tables, humans, etc, in some sense, but that is fine: ultimately we believe in nothing. But we are not going to deny the existence of such things — not yet anyway — because, firstly, we would be ridiculed, even though it is something to which many of the ridiculers themselves would be committed if they were consistent; and secondly, we have not yet found a compelling use for doing so. But let it be understood that these “useful fictions”, as we believe them to be, lead a precarious existence in our minds: when we can no longer find a use for one, or if it is thought that we could get along better without it, then be assured that we shall no longer have any regard for it. It has not yet become expedient to deny the existence of humans; but the same argument and nihilistic spirit, which is used to deny the existence of anything whereof no use or love can be found, will be readily at hand when the need arises; and who knows what the future holds in that regard? For genocide, we must say, is really not that important in the scheme of things, if we look at the grand picture of the total destruction to which we tend. The dissolution of persons as well as peoples can occur; for the idea of persons is no more defensible in our philosophy than that of peoples; and since we take our arguments to be effective against peoples, our having the appetite to their destruction, so, in the end, as the appetite to utility and power dictates, we shall take these arguments to be effective against persons, as well as against any of the other complex objects of our experience which displease us or which prove not to be useful in the calculus of power. We do not believe in the rational will, but we are quite prepared to call our irrational appetite rationality itself if it is useful to do so. It is all just words and words are just noises signifying nothing. Everything is deniable under the government of the irrational appetite of our bestial condition. And ultimately, by our appetite, nothing can be affirmed.
     Presently such is the case with peoples: when is a people actually a people? Never, unless it is expedient for us to say so! We could replace all the Germans with Turks and still call them Germans. And the delightful thing is that the Germans, for the most part, would acquiesce to the process. And by all the argumentative means by which we are dissolving the Germans, the English, the Swedes, and indeed all the European nations, we can dissolve all races, nations, peoples, tribes, and ethnic groups. As for denying native or indigenous peoples their status as such, you may understand that, by our absurd measure and whim, it can be done to every people on this earth. There are no ontologically-objective lines in the sand, as it were. Perhaps it is this which will shock you. Had you not placed innocence in these others? Did you not hold that the Bantu peoples or the Tibetans had the right to exist, that they are actually peoples with homelands? Here for us the Tibetans are an interesting case. The Han-Chinese are in the process of destroying their homeland and culture, and eventually, we may suppose, their physical-biological existence as a distinct people; and even we find in that something to be regretted, when, in the case of our own race and peoples, we feel hardly a twinge, but rather even happiness. Yet times change, and perhaps one day, under the efficiency-imperative of a world-bureaucracy, our more Enlightened descendants will seek the disappearance of all races and peoples — by the same arguments and the same abnegation of reason which we have used and promoted against our own kind. 
     Some of these glimpses of reality may have pained you; for you had fancied, damned and beloved creatures of wickedness that you are, that the great sin of racial antagonism and aggression had somehow departed the world — except, we may curiously observe, in the case of your own European race, which you believe has remained deeply stained with it. But how are we to find our redemption, we sinful ones? Why, we seek our redemption through the destruction of our own race! Do we not believe that the racial aggression of blacks, for instance, or the seeking of the self-determination thereof, is but a struggle for justice, a healthy expression of their identity, whereas the same of whites is a fight for darkness and barbarity, even despite — no, because of! — the civilisation they have brought, and do we not meet the most pathetic, the most heartfelt, and even the most just cry of a white man — our own fellow — with contempt? But of course we do! Our race and our peoples are for us the repository of sin, whereas other races and peoples are the means of our redemption; for, through them we can destroy our own, and thereby rid the world of sin, and that is the only redemption that is available to us godless men. That is why “the other” is holy to us — it is not us, the sinful ones. Nevertheless it must be understood that it is not we as particular individuals who believe ourselves sinful as particular individuals; on the contrary, as such, we believe ourselves to be close to godliness, cleansed by our embrace of “the other”, enough to deem ourselves morally fit to bring outrage down upon the unclean; — it is our own peoples which are sinful, the very existence of them a dark stain on the world. That is why they must be destroyed and why we must be pitiless in our drive to that end. For us, in our sunken world, it is a war of sinlessness against sin, good against evil, justice against injustice, right against wrong, and it would be dreadful for us to give quarter or sympathy to sin, evil, injustice, and wrong. That is how it is for us in our sunken world, a world in which we do not see ourselves, nor ever think of sin as such, certainly not in consideration of ourselves as individuals, a world wherein our deep psychical motives are hidden from us; but here and now, as we are sniffing the air and feeling the sunshine, and recoiling in horror at the healthiness of it, we appreciate that it is we who are sick, and profoundly so.
     Be it said, then, my dearest of all Europeans, that the long-term future of Europe is either European or non-European, or, if you prefer to put it another way, racially white as descended largely or exclusively from genetic Europeans, or racially non-white as descended either largely or exclusively from genetic non-Europeans or from genetic Europeans and genetic non-Europeans in a significant admixture. If you choose European, then why is that more wrong than if you choose non-European? Now, you may cry that I have set up a false dichotomy, that really the choice is European, non-European, or a “vibrant and colourful” co-habitation of the two categories of people living happily ever after as separate peoples in mutual harmony; but that is not so, and the dichotomy still stands, or at least it does outside our absurd fantasy; for we are talking about the long-term future of peoples living in the same territory or polity, wherein miscegenation, or slaughter, or both, will likely produce, given that our fantasy does not come true, one of the following outcomes: a European people descended largely or exclusively from ancestral Europeans; a non-European people descended largely or exclusively from ancestral non-Europeans; or a non-European people descended from a significant admixture of both ancestral Europeans and ancestral non-Europeans. The choice for the long-term future of Europe still stands: European or non-European.
     If you say that one preference for the long-term future is better than the other, or even that one is evil and the other good, then you need to ask why your preference is better than that of someone who chooses otherwise. Why, for instance, is non-European better than European? But we already know your preference and why it is good: because, by our ideology, European is evil and non-European is good! You can rightly claim that the preferences are not equal, namely, that they are not both racial preferences; for you can hold that the choice is between race and not-race. But now you have to ask why racial preference — or “racism”, as we call it — is bad whilst anti-racial preference — or “anti-racism” — is good. It could come as an uncomfortable surprise for you, since you are always accusing your fellows of racism because you know that they will take it as bad; for predominant ideologies tend to go unquestioned and even unseen; but now you have to wonder why it is bad and not just assume it is. To put it starkly: why is it bad to wish to preserve a race or a people but good to be willing or careless to see it destroyed? It is after all quite something remarkable that we have embarked upon: to be willing or indifferent to the destruction of a unique form of life which took thousands of years to develop and which can never be recovered, and it is an especially odd will or indifference when it is the form of life to which we ourselves belong. But perhaps you have superior forms in mind: perhaps the dissolution of your own race by its admixture with others will produce a superior and enlightened people;— a super-race in comparison to the old and sinful race to which you belong. But hold on! A superior race? That cannot be what you are after — you hate the idea! You even deny the existence of races to make it impossible to think it! Or is it just the idea of different contemporaneous races that you hate? Is one super-race existing alone — thereby no longer actually a race, but one dominant species — and superior to all the races of the past an idea that sits well with you? Well, of course, the idea also sits well with any pan-exterminatory genocidalist who would like to see his own race triumph above all! But I am only playing with you. You and I do not want any such thing. It is not a superior race that we desire. Inferior is more our style. And that is the funny thing: we would dissolve our own race because we believe it to be embarrassingly superior. It is that belief which is for us the source of its sin and shame. In other times, we would have made splendid supremacists, as all peoples once were in their own eyes for their own ways. But we are now as fate has made us: our own ways are the wrong ways, the sinful ways, and they must be destroyed. Not, again I say, we ourselves as individuals: we hold ourselves to be the blessed and the enlightened ones. Times are different and we are of a different kind. We are Enlightened. We seek inferiority and dissolution.
     So, my dear friends in darkness, I hope you have learnt that, on our terms, on the terms by which we are committing genocide even today, there is nothing necessarily frightful. For sure, you have had to learn a few uncomfortable truths about yourselves: that you are elements of absolute evil, that you are profoundly sick, that you would ultimately be the agents of the destruction of everything; but everything has its price. Even our so-called gift of speech is subject to a most humbling fee: the risk of choking on our own tongues. Besides, you will soon forget; for, except, as now, when it is pointed out to you, the process you see today appears to you quite normal, though it is the most extraordinary thing that has ever happened in the history of the world. But why shouldn’t it be? We are extraordinarily sophisticated, and we are extraordinarily sundered from the reality of our extraordinary deeds — set apart like small, mean, self-absorbed gods.
     It is true that the primitive instincts are not quite dead in us; for we still see in other peoples a goodness and a beauty which do truly exist in them, and we see in our own peoples an evil and an ugliness which likewise do truly exist; but the irony is that it is we above all amongst our own peoples who are the haters and the destroyers; we are the greatest blight upon them. We flit from one thing to another in a never-ending search for things to hate — which makes us feel moral. We do not just represent the principle of the destruction of our own peoples, but also the principle of the eventual destruction of all the other peoples for whom we still have some sympathy. From us, in the end, nothing is safe.
     So what are we together, you and I, in our darkest elements? “We are the spirit that always denies.” We are Mephistopheles. You may laugh at the thought of it, but were you so crude as to put him into literal-material form and then dismiss his existence as nonsense? But of course you were! It is around such crudities that the pearls of our sophistication are formed.
     In all primitive honesty, we can say: what is happening is monstrous, but, since almost everyone is co-opted into the process, made willing by seduction and corruption and the most pleasing images, which each interprets in his own hopeful way, each a fool nodding in confirmation of Barnum-statements, then to whom does it appear monstrous? Why, to almost no-one! And, my foul friends, those few together who remain outside our circle constitute a weakling whom we can crush with ridicule and spite — and law too! But let us not be parochial: that would strike against our pride, which is nothing without claim to universal sophistication. We cannot see any bounds that are not of our own making; and we would sooner become scattered across the whole world like dust than be bound up in some poky little corner of it; — let us not be parochial: the disappearance of the nations matters not at all in the universal scheme of things; forsooth nothing matters; for is that not what the whole of our philosophy teaches, when all is said and done, when we face it honestly, when we refuse to dress it in the flimsy contradictions of sentimentality? At any moment, we can strip that philosophy bare, and bring the most ruthless destruction down upon some object that has begun to displease us because we can no longer find a use for it. All that is left to us — and we demonstrate it daily — is to feed the needs and desires of a distinctly bestial kind. We even boast of it; for it is what we sometimes fancy to be our realistic attitude — we who turn from a glimpse of reality as a woodlouse scurries from sunlight! No, we have already been parochial enough in speaking today of the little matter of genocide, even if by some need of illustration. Let us not pity the loss of some particular race or people, which after all is to us just a fancy and ill-definable collocation of atoms. The universe is too vast a system for us to spare a thought for some little corner of it. It would be silly to do so. It would give privilege to what does not in fact possess it.
     So now, my chthonic spirits, to ease ourselves back into comforting ground, let us all agree: what has been happening to your nations — to the Swedes, to the Germans, to the French, to the English, and so on — is not genocide; it would be absurd for you to call it such; for there have been no stock-images outside your heads which have matched the stock-images inside them; it has merely been the process of the systematic and deliberate dissolution of nations — how wonderful are words! — wherein you, my pale elements, have been playing an enthusiastic part. The process will continue, and so we shall continue to hate and condemn those who stand against us. But I am sorry to have troubled you. Go back to your managed opinions, your moral panics, your endless chasing after gadgets and cars and interesting foods — go back to your dark unreality. If you are lucky, you will hardly feel a thing, and the name of genocide, by the only sense in which your derelict souls can grasp it, will never be invoked, though the integrity of Europe be extinguished for ever.

Friday, 9 October 2009

Charlton on the Clever Silly

Bruce G. Charlton, evolutionary psychiatrist, professor of theoretical medicine, and editor-in-chief of Medical Hypotheses, lays on a feast of that oddest animal of all: the clever silly.

Here is a sniff of the starter:
“[M]y suggested explanation . . . is that an increasing relative level of IQ brings with it a tendency differentially to over-use general intelligence in problem-solving, and to over-ride those instinctive and spontaneous forms of evolved behaviour which could be termed common sense. Preferential use of abstract analysis is often useful when dealing with the many evolutionary novelties to be found in modernizing societies; but is not usually useful for dealing with social and psychological problems for which humans have evolved ‘domain-specific’ adaptive behaviours. And since evolved common sense usually produces the right answers in the social domain, this implies that, when it comes to solving social problems, the most intelligent people are more likely than those of average intelligence to have novel but silly ideas, and therefore to believe and behave maladaptively. I further suggest that this random silliness of the most intelligent people may be amplified to generate systematic wrongness when intellectuals are in addition ‘advertising’ their own high intelligence in the evolutionarily novel context of a modern IQ meritocracy. The cognitively-stratified context of communicating almost exclusively with others of similar intelligence generates opinions and behaviours among the highest IQ people which are not just lacking in common sense but perversely wrong.” [1]
And here is a whiff of the dessert:
“Yet, whatever else, to be a clever silly is a somewhat tragic state; because it entails being cognitively trapped by compulsive abstraction; unable to engage directly and spontaneously with what most humans have traditionally regarded as psycho-social reality; disbarred from the common experience of humankind and instead cut-adrift on the surface of a glittering but shallow ocean of novelties: none of which can ever truly convince or satisfy. It is to be alienated from the world; and to find no stable meaning of life that is solidly underpinned by emotional conviction. Little wonder, perhaps, that clever sillies choose sub-replacement reproduction.” [2]
If some humility could be taught to the clever silly before he begins to form an idea about a matter of widespread social and political importance, perhaps then he could be persuaded to bear in mind a paraphrase of a line by Groucho Marx: Any idiot could understand this matter; fetch me an idiot!

[1] Bruce G. Charlton, “Clever Sillies: Why High IQ People Tend to be Deficient in Common Sense”, Medical Hypotheses, in press, 2009, p.1. (For more of Dr Charlton’s works, see here and here.)

[2] Ibid., pp.3-4. David Stove was also good on clever sillies. See, for instance, his “Righting Wrongs”, in On Enlightenment, ed. A. Irvine (New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2003), and “The Oracles and Their Cessation: a Tribute to Julian Jaynes”, in Cricket versus Republicanism, and Other Essays (Sydney: Quakers Hill Press, 1995).

Saturday, 26 September 2009


It is hoped under the impress of the mechanical philosophy that men will one day be able to look upon the world and explain all of its aspects in mechanical terms without the slightest reference to functionality or intentionality, including the very apparent and conscious intentionality of trying to explain all of the aspects of the world in mechanical terms. It seems, however, that this vain hope has not filtered down into the lower and less sophisticated reaches of reductionistic belief; for therein is taken for granted not only the existence of mere teleology in the microbiological world, but also the existence of strategic ability. An example follows:
“Of course, human environments consist mainly of other people, and the genes of those alive today contain many strategies for dealing with those other people . . . some of them are very good at manipulating other people.” [1]
The belief that bits of nucleic acid have strategies is so fantastic that I am baffled by how a man could hold it. No superstition of this age or any other is so deeply unreasonable. Nevertheless, if we were to entertain it for a moment, we should rightly wonder what dastardly strategy genes have in store for us in their tendency to reveal their dastardly-strategic natures to seemingly naïve and impressionable men.

[1] Anonymous, commenting on Dennis Mangan, “Social sciences as branches of biology”, Mangan’s (weblog), 24th September 2009. (Also: “as far as living things are concerned, genes are everything”. I once heard a man likewise claim that he was merely a genebot, and I must admit that, in view of his moronic character, I was very inclined to agree with him.)

Feser’s Unabsurdity Principle

“If that claim [about the nature of final causation] sounds obvious and trivial, then terrific: You’re starting to understand Aristotle and Aquinas, because it’s supposed to be obvious and trivial.” [1]

Or: If the concept of final causation does not strike you as absurd, then you have probably understood it.

[1] Edward Feser, “Teleology Revisted”, Edward Feser (weblog), 24th September 2009; original emphasis.

Saturday, 19 September 2009

Mere Science

“The aim of life is to pass on one’s genes”, says Mr Worstall, adding that “we are told by the scientists” that it is so. [1] Well, randy scientists might tell him such things, but science — as knowledge only of the empirical-mechanical aspects of the world — does not. Aims, goals, purposes, etc, of any kind are outside its scope. To say that life itself has an aim of any kind is to impute to it a teleological nature, upon which science by itself is utterly silent. It ought to be obvious that the claim, to wit, that the aim of life is to pass on one’s genes, is not a scientific hypothesis, since it is not in any way verifiable or falsifiable. It is a metaphysical view in that it draws from the data of the physical world a conclusion which is not itself verifiable or falsifiable by the data thereof. [2] As a metaphysical view, it is open to rational disputation, wherein one may take into consideration whether it helps us, or is necessary for us, to make sense of the world, whether it accords with our experience, whether it is rationally coherent with our other claims, whether it leads to the denial of inconvenient facts, and so forth.
.....In speaking merely scientifically of so-called natural causes and laws, we are speaking only of the routines of sense-experience, as Karl Pearson phrased it, and not of some necessity or enforcement. All scientific laws and described regularities, taken merely scientifically without metaphysical insight, describe simply how things have behaved according to past sense-experience. Science, in the ideal-empirical state of having been stripped bare of all metaphysical insights, cannot claim any knowledge outside of the empirical-mechanical aspects of the world: “chaos is all that science can logically assert of the supersensuous”. [3] But if we are to think of order, causation, rationality, intentionality, teleology, and so forth, whereby we make sense of the world, then we must accept that our understanding of the world is something above a mere regular sequence of sense-impressions.
.....It is the spirit of positivism, however, which has the ideal-empirical state as its end for human thought as a whole. If a man ever achieved that state, he would become at that moment a brute. Perhaps then, having renounced his rational nature, his sole aim in life would be to pass on his genes, perhaps even as does the lowest life-form; and, having achieved his aim, he would spend his later years aimlessly writing popular-science books.

[1] Tim Worstall, “This is Absurd”, Tim Worstall (weblog), 19th September 2009.
[2] Even Richard Dawkins seems to be aware that his gene-centric view is not a scientific hypothesis: “I doubt that there is any experiment that could be done to prove my claim.” The Extended Phenotype: Gene as the Unit of Selection (London: W.H.Freeman & Co Ltd, 1982), p.1.
[3] Karl Pearson, The Grammar of Science (London: Adam and Charles Black, 1900), p.108.

Thursday, 10 September 2009

Restricted Entry

“A young man is not a fit person to attend lectures on political science, because he is not versed in the practical business of life from which politics draws its premises and subject-matter. Besides, he tends to follow his feelings, with the result that he will make no headway and derive no benefit from his course, since the object of it is not knowledge but action. It makes no difference whether he is young in age or youthful in character; the defect is due not to lack of years but to living, and pursuing one’s various aims, under sway of the feelings; for to people like this knowledge becomes as unprofitable as it is for the incontinent.” [1]

We should greatly enlarge the entrances to all the departments of political science in the land, not so as to admit more students, but so as to fit those words in large letters on the lintels.

[1] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, I.iii:1095a, tr, J.A.K. Thomson (London: Penguin Books, 2004), p.6; capitalisation added to first letter.

At School

“If one looks upon nature as a tutor, and us poor humans as listeners, then one is inclined to give room to a quite strange idea of mankind. All of us sit in a school-lesson, have the principles necessary to understand and comprehend it, yet we are always listening more to the chatter of our classmates than to the lecture of the tutor. Or indeed when a classmate next to us notes something down, we crib from him, steal what perhaps he himself has dimly heard, and we add to it our own misspellings and mistaken views.”

[“Wenn man die Natur als Lehrerin, und die armen Menschen als Zuhörer betrachtet, so ist man geneigt, einer ganz sonderbaren Idee vom menschlichen Geschlechte Raum zu geben. Wir sitzen allsamt in einem Collegio, haben die Prinzipien, die nötig sind, es zu verstehen und zu fassen, horchen aber immer mehr auf die Plaudereien unserer Mitschüler, als auf den Vortrag der Lehrerin. Oder wenn ja einer neben uns etwas nachschreibt, so spicken wir von ihm, stehlen, was er selbst vielleicht undeutlich hörte, und vermehren es mit unsern eigenen orthographischen und Meinungsfehlern.”]

G.C. Lichtenberg, Sudelbücher (Frankfurt am Main und Leipzig: Insel Verlag, 1984), I/90,2, wahrscheinlich aus Sudelbuch K (1793), p.465; original emphasis.

Monday, 7 September 2009

A Review

“This website is made up of old, grumpy, impotent men who pretend to be profound thinkers. How sad they are with their limited views of life and how threatened they are with their deletions of other points of view. What is needed here are women’s perspectives, which tend to reflect more open and global perspectives. We doubt, however, that the ‘all-knowing’ men on this lowly blog would ever include intelligent responses to their shallow responses. Our criticisms of Curmudgeonry’s old men’s views have therefore been published in other international websites.”

Anonymous, in the combox to “Just a Beginning”, on this lowly blog.

Thursday, 3 September 2009

O Deo Whiggismum Odeo

“The best prediction that could have been made 20 years ago is that things can only get better. That’s also the best prediction that can be made now about the future and has been the best prediction that anyone can make about two decades in the future ever since we invented this liberal capitalism shtick back in 1750.”

Tim Worstall, “The best prediction of the past 20 years”, Tim Worstall (weblog), 3rd September 2009.

Monday, 31 August 2009

A Guiding Clue

“We must grasp the essential contrast between the whole modern world-view and that of previous thought, and use that clearly conceived contrast as a guiding clue to pick out for criticism and evaluation, in the light of their historical development, every one of our significant modern presuppositions.”

Edwin Arthur Burtt, The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Physical Science (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1925), p.16.

Without Embarrassment

“The left always feel faintly embarrassed at attempting to promote their own political agenda”, says Steven Barnett, [1] professor of communications at Westminster University, without the faintest trace of embarrassment. Odd, I say, for I had thought that much of the success of leftism through the centuries down to the present day had been owed to the diabolical shamelessness of its promotion. I must have been reading the history and seeing the sights of another planet. Perhaps I ought to go back to university in order to learn how to communicate with this one, perhaps even without embarrassment.

[1] Quoted by Mehdi Hasan, “Bias and the Beeb”, The New Statesman, 27th August 2009.

Monday, 24 August 2009

A Sham and Puerile Kind of Heroism

“Science being, it is said, a pure service of truth for truth’s sake, is not called upon to consider whether the selfish wishes of men’s souls are satisfied or not. Thus here, too, men pass from timidity to presumptuous boldness. Having once tasted the delight of impartial and wholly unfettered investigation, they rush into a sham and puerile kind of heroism that glories in having renounced that which no one has ever any right to renounce; and reposing boundless confidence in assumptions which are by no means incontestable, estimate the truth of their new philosophic views in direct proportion to the degree of offensive hostility which these exhibit towards everything—except science—that is held sacred by the living soul of man.”

Hermann Lotze, Microcosmus, Vol.I, tr. E. Hamilton and E.E. Constance Jones (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1885), p.viii.

Fewtril no.271

In the course of decline, a nation can pass through a time of pessimism into a time of optimism whence the gloominess of the earlier time looks silly, thereby confirming the fears of the pessimists: that after them would arise a mass of pigs satisfied.

Lucky Albion

“In Britain [between the world wars], many concluded that the wrong people . . . were giving birth at a rate that threatened to engulf society in a wave of mediocrity.” [1]

Phew! Thank goodness that didn’t happen!

[1] Matthew Price, “The end was nigh”, review of The Morbid Age: Britain Between the Wars, by Richard Overy, The National, 20th August 2009.

A Little Reminder

“I certainly cannot explain how we got here, but I’d rather wait a thousand years to see if science can push back a few more layers of our ignorance before positing what seems to me a somewhat metaphorical explanation for our place in the universe.” [1]

My dear lady, I do not know how to break it to you, but there is a fairly good chance that you will be dead in a thousand years from now.

[1] Heather MacDonald, “The Evolution of God”, Secular Right (weblog), 9th August 2009.

The Carefree Minds of Ants

“Ants behave in an extremely collective fashion. Each has no say in what happens, and it’s no problem for them, why should it be a problem for us?” [1]

It would not be a problem for “us” if we had the minds of ants. Forsooth we would have no problems at all. There are many other entities which have no problems: pebbles, leaves, stars, and so on. A utopian world free of problems is just a short step away.

[1] “Shlick”, commenting on Madeleine Bunting, “In control? Think again. Our ideas of brain and human nature are myths”, Comment is Free (The Guardian’s weblog), 23rd August 2009. (I do sometimes gape in wonder at what seems to be the profound stupidity of the commenters at Comment is Free, but then I remember that they are all geniuses, greater than which the world has never known.)