Amoral Counter-Signaling is Retarded

*tips bowler*

I don’t really have much choice but to address this, because it’s now become too intrusive to ignore. So here we have an article published by Radix discussing why being against abortion is a ‘trap’, and how the right should support abortion. What I’m about to do is criticize the idea that this author, Aylmer Fisher, is right-anything. This is a political critique of a particular essay and a particular trend that I’m not the only one taking notice of. It should not be interpreted as a criticism of any broader group of individuals not directly referenced, and anyone who does interpret it as such after I went to painstaking lengths to avoid that, is being deliberately annoying. The article generated controversy, and I am presenting this side of that controversy, so consider it debate rather than drama. I’ll take it piece by piece:

“Life gains its meaning through connections to other members of our families, tribes, and nations.”

To start, what does this even mean? When he uses the term ‘meaning’ this is either one of two things. Either subjective meaning, which has no relevance to anybody other than the person holding it, much less any impact on truth. Or he is speaking of objective meaning, a metaphysical description, and how meaning in life is only given through ‘connections’ to other people is never really explained. What ‘meaning’ could temporal, finite creatures on an infinitesimal speck of dust in the wide universe bestow upon me? From where did these more evolved apes get such power? I jest of course, the author obviously is referring to subjective meaning here, but as I pointed out, this is the equivalent of not saying anything.

“First of all, the pro-life position is clearly dysgenic.”

Okay, so the author then gives a reasonable amount of data on the kinds of women in the United States that have abortions, and as expected, they are typically lower-income individuals, and minorities. This is an argument that is central to the position of eugenic abortionists. It’s premise is that from the inception of abortion as legal practice until now, it has helped keep the majority of the population white, therefore whites ‘owe’ the practice of abortion, and are obligated to keep it running. This logic fails if the starting premise is that those large minorities shouldn’t be here in the first place, and ought to all be removed to their place of origin or cordoned off with their own state. When you favor that position, the question of whether these groups abort or not becomes a political non-issue, like the taxes in Cape Verde. Has abortion hindered the birth of minority children? Yes. Has abortion massively increased the amount of unsafe sex, out-of-wedlock pregnancies, and irresponsible partner decisions among all races? Yes. It’s a get-out-of-jail-free card, and it grants women autonomy they shouldn’t have.

Also, something has slipped here. Notice that Fisher doesn’t care about the perfectly healthy, normal white babies that were aborted. Why? Because they are outnumbered by minority children. You see, he doesn’t even give members of his race any intrinsic value, they are numerical objects in an equation, and if the equation balances in a way he likes, then it’s fine that they are subtracted. Reign of quantity. Sign of the times. Guénon saw this asshole coming almost 100 years ago.

“When an intelligent, responsible woman does have an abortion”

This sentence doesn’t even compute. The act of having an abortion renders a woman immediately unintelligent and irresponsible. What in God’s name could be more irresponsible than escaping one’s innate duties as a mother by killing the child she’s responsible for? White knighting at its finest.

intelligent, responsible, and in dire need of a cossack beating

“The alt Right is skeptical, to say the least, of concepts like “equality” and “human rights,” especially as bases for policy.”

What he really wants to say here is ‘morality’, but instead uses these Liberal buzzwords as stand-ins when they are entirely different things. Morality existed before ‘equality’ came into vogue and ‘human rights’ was even coined. Most intelligent anti-abortionists argue from morality, that we have a moral obligation not to murder innocent people, and a further moral duty not to murder innocent people who are our own kin. I’m not sure why the author doesn’t just straight up say he is in favor of murder when the victim is somebody he doesn’t regard as eugenically valuable. Why is that hard to say? Do these advocates lack the testicular fortitude to just go straight-up edgelord and declare that all morality is BS, Dylan Roof is innocent, etc.? That’s what Nietzsche did, and the author does allude to him.

Maybe the author does have a kind of morality, a twisted utilitarian morality. Hint: utilitarianism isn’t exactly a ‘Traditional’ concept, it’s a little more ‘Modern’. Just to clarify what the Right has stood for since its inception: morality grounded in the nature of the divine and relayed to humanity through direct revelation and natural law (Gnon if you will). The author is as far from that as any card-carrying communist.

“The unborn fetus has no connection to anyone else in the community.”

… I mean, this is just bizarre. The ‘fetus’ not only has a metaphysical connection to the woman and man who actually created it by fruit of their copulation, but a physical connection to the mother since she sustains it. This is akin to saying that Siamese twins have no connection to each other. The baby is also presumably of some ethnic group, so is by definition, kin, at least to somebody. The author asserts that meaning in life is given by our connections with people, our kin, but says that unborn children don’t have that ‘connection’. This leads me to believe his idea of ‘connection’ involves social interaction. The reason we shouldn’t care about unborn white children is because we don’t interact with them and they are therefore meaningless to us.

Question: then why should I give a shit about all the white people I’ve never met nor will meet?

By this point I’m wondering how many more asinine statements are going to appear. 

“It is no coincidence that some of the most pro-life politicians are those most excited about adopting children from Africa and those in their movement are among the conservatives most likely to denounce the “racism” of their political opponents.”

This is the fallacy of trying to invalidate a position by pointing to dumb stuff that those who hold the position do. Guess what, most people in history haven’t killed their children… and most people in history also haven’t adopted kids from Africa.

into the trash it goes

“When the parent-child bond does not exist for a pregnant woman, society has no business stepping in.”

I want a serious question answered here. What is Fisher’s argument that women who cannot experience the organic connection they ought to have with their children should be allowed to live? He doesn’t think morality is real, people only have eugenic value. What is the eugenic value of a woman who cannot bring children into the world and raise them? I could write an entire essay on why the root problem here is that society conditions such women to feel that way by instilling in them the values of the Modern World, but keep this in mind: the pregnant woman who Fisher describes here is as valueless as her unborn child, under his system.

“If there were to be a pro-life position that we could accept, it would be based on arguments about what is good for the community. The case would have to be made that abortion is what is decimating the White population and decreasing its quality.”

There we have it, the truth comes out at last. The only, and I mean only thing that people like Fisher care about is the racial angle. It all comes down to the demographic problem facing ‘whites’. So, here is how you know there is nothing rightist about such a position. There was NO such threat when rightism emerged as a response to the French Revolution. In real terms, this threat has only really emerged within the last 50 years, and yet somehow it is the epicenter, the locus, the be-all-and-end-all of truly authentic right wing thought. So, I have another question, what actually is the difference between Fisher and the 1488 crowd? They may differ in their mode of rhetoric, and perhaps Fisher doesn’t have a swastika tattoo, nor does he think concentration camps are necessarily good, but  both seem to agree that the only real problem we face is the racial one. I can’t really go after Kyle Hunt for this idiocy and not call out this first time writer at Radix. I’d be a hypocrite.

“It is as if pro-life identitarians want to force women be wives and mothers by leaving them no other choice.”

They should have no other choice. What exactly is Fisher smoking? Just a paragraph up he says “women’s liberation has been a disaster for our society”. That’s what women’s liberation is. the allowance of agency for women to do anything they want, be anything their heart desires. Much like Sargon of Akkad, Fisher does show support for the underlying assumptions of Feminism, while maybe just thinking Laci Green takes it too far. The right wing position, the Reactionary position, is that the high-time preference of women is justification for removing from them the agency to make big decisions, like abandoning the purpose they were designed for. Yes, I don’t want that to be a choice for women, and the enforcement mechanism for that takes the form of cultural pressures, familial pressures, and law.

we can make believe she had choices
but she didn’t, and was better for it

“There is no higher calling in life than continuing the species, and raising happy, healthy children who will be a benefit to society.”

This is completely bereft of any value whatsoever. Continuing the ‘species’. Yeah, I’m programmed to do that, but it isn’t a high calling, no higher than when insects have sex. The meaning in the world comes from our relation to that which is beyond ourselves, and society is valuable insofar as it reflects the nature of this superior realm. Other than that it’s just a curiosity inside a cosmic car crash, Also, children are not intrinsically valuable because of their ‘benefit to society’. If this is their only source of value, then the article really has ceased to be about abortion at all. If your five year old can’t get good grades, better cut his throat and try again. Children are intrinsically valuable to parents specifically because they are pieces of us that can outlast us, and continue a legacy with all the value you can accrue through your actions here on earth. Raising them successfully aids in this process, and it is only then by extension that such well-raised children benefit those of their kin around them with what they can provide.

If the motivation for having kids in a society is to “benefit” the society, then something has already gone fantastically wrong. This is a Maoist incentive for big families (which preceded the One-Child Policy by the way).


So, that is my treatment of the essay in specific. I’m adding this addendum to bring it all together and make clear exactly what is going on here. There is a substratum of dissident right thinking (and I use that in the very broad sense of the popular opposition to Conservatism on the grounds of its failures and ideological concessions) that is entryist. This isn’t the active, malicious, and buffoonish entryism that I described when I dissected Kyle Hunt’s views, this is something a little different.

There are certain people who have a grievance against the radical left, but acquiesce to post-Enlightenment thought. For Conservatives (at least today), it’s the size and scope of federal power and areas of very obvious degeneracy. For people like Aylmer Fisher, its demographics. His approach to the world is identical to leftism in one key way, it does not presuppose any value but what we make. The Liberals have built in this vacuum an empty god of ‘progress’, while Fisher has built an empty god of ‘the white majority’. Without higher principles, it means nothing. In fact, a race that functioned under the kind of diabolical amoralism he suggests would be as worthy of survival as the Canaanites, who we don’t hear much from anymore.

Some may mistake this commentary, and think that I’m trying to police the morality of people who identify as right wing. Nothing could be further from the truth. I actually agree that nobody should be doing that. When revelations about some stupid personal blog post that Bryce Laliberte had written ages ago concerning same-sex attraction surfaced, and he was subsequently bullycided from his blog, I said that the entire thing was ridiculous. Those who dig into people’s history to find some personal problem with them are frankly the lowest scum that occupy the edgysphere. They aren’t interested in ideas, only personalities.

But, just to take another example at random, when someone underlines his own works with “Aryan Futurism, Heavy Metal Entheogenic Mysticism, and pitiless hordes of adolescent warriors in rainbow thongs“, and puts forth the virtue of faggotry, that is something entirely different. That has to do with political ideology, not personal morality. The personal morality of political thinkers doesn’t bother me in most cases, and others have dedicated considerable time to elucidating such a well-advised position. It is correct to say that we shouldn’t impose a strict ideological dogma upon rightist intellectual circles today. It’s not possible, and it doesn’t serve any concrete purpose. However, when someone strikes at the heart of the foundation of rightist thought by embracing nihilism and applying it to any number of issues, it ought be addressed with the utmost scrutiny.

Maistre definitely would have had this on
his reading list

The two things have to be separated, in order that we can address not immorality on the right (which I don’t care about), but amoral counter-signaling on the right, which only serves to tell everyone how edgy you are because anyone who isn’t a nihilistic Nietzschean is of course a ‘cuck’. Those who think that race is the only issue of any significance, are just as bad as those who think the Jewish Question is the only issue of any real significance. Shiksa Goddess, meet Aylmer Fisher.

The Right as it has been conceived accurately from its foundation until today, has been concerned with the organic realities of human nature and the civilization which extends from that nature proper. It has not embraced nihilism, which can only be described as poison. Mothers murdering their children can never be justified in organic terms, it is an explicit, satanic rejection of everything healthy and good, an inversion of the organic order. I don’t care if you justify it with a serious swastika or a pseudo-intellectual appeal to an unrealistic “muhh racial purity”, and worse yet if you’re too cowardly to follow things through to their logical conclusion, that it is in fact dysgenic not to buy a revolver and shoot black 5 year olds in the face. The result is the same, you completely misapprehend the depth and scope of the right wing position, its values, and what it holds dear. By all means, if you think in the way that Fisher does, if your world is as clinical, numeric, and uninteresting as his sounds, then just call yourself a dissenting leftist. Senator Joe Manchin (WV) thinks the left is wrong on guns. Why not just say you think the left is wrong on race, but that this encapsulates your disagreement?

AntiDem was right in saying that due to the increasing viciousness of the left’s holiness purging, many of its ideological acolytes have been confused into thinking they must be the heretical caricatures that they are painted as. It’s interesting, since although Stalin had Trotsky killed, there’s really no doubt both were Marxists. Come to think of it, I’m sure Trotsky’s last thoughts when he was having an ice axe buried in his head were not “Damn! I was an enemy of the revolution all along!”

No, we haven’t fallen into a ‘trap’ at all. On the contrary, you’ve walked into our camp ground with a bear trap from the Progressive wilderness on your leg, arrogantly telling us things are absolutely fine. I’ll note that this ridiculous attack on those opposed to abortion was an entirely unprovoked and poorly landed first strike. 

Those who look at a dead child and state with no uncertainty, “the mother dindu nuffin!” suffer from the same kind of spiritual/moral autism that leftists do. They can’t see evil when staring into its ugly, black, remorseless eyes; there is something most definitely defective about them, worse than physical blindness. So, Aylmer, when we talk about dysgenics, what happens if your name comes up?

“it’s called being a Nietzschean superman, DAD!
you should try it sometime!”

(Very related from the Social Pathologist. For a criticism of the contemporary ‘pro-life’ movement, not from the left, but from the right, see Kristor)

57 thoughts on “Amoral Counter-Signaling is Retarded

  1. I've had your name mentioned to me before, never with praise.

    What I am sure are American pipe dreams of the 'new west' are just that. Each nation will find its own path, and most will reject this kind of 'pan-whitism' you espouse. The only unity that could lie in the future would be conquest from the East and the inception of a new Rome, but we are far far from that. And of course religion matters. There are pacts in blood to Christian land, sworn to by the forefathers of every tribe, that is, except the United States. Atheism certainly will do you no service. The future will either be subjugation to the Southern power, the ever-multiplying hordes of Islam, or a binding oath to rebuild what was and to fulfill our holy mission.

    “Western Civilization” isn't anything but a made up concept. We may speak of French civilization, we may speak of Spanish civilization, but no 'Western Civilization', which has only come to be synonymous with the interests of Modernity and Liberalism advancing across the globe. Since the term 'Western Civilization' has come into vogue and popular usage, I piss on everything it stands for.

    Your position on abortion ends in the same place as mine on the practical level. I don't wish to interfere in what other peoples practice, but that does not mean I will applaud when they murder their children, nor sanction the murder of those who are mine because of a numbers game. Child killers are deserving of death. Enjoy that 'Christian thinking'.

    When my number comes up, I go to my God with a clean conscience, knowing that I have been saved through His victory, and that while I was on this earth I did everything I could to ensure His, rather than my, enemies were given justice. Those in the 'altright' should make their decision. Are they just racially conscious leftists, or are they true rightists. That is the point here. It's very easy to be a racially conscious leftist. See Al Sharpton. I'm not really interested in helping a gaggle of white Al Sharptons, nor are any members of the Reactosphere that I know.


  2. That is a good insult. well played. If true rather than rhetorical I'd be mildly surprised anyone has heard of me. In any case we don't live in an era where the small t , truth gets much respect so it matters little what others think of an outcast view.

    Also I'm not espousing pan Whitism and am less in favor of it than many Christians of the past were of Christendom. That said acknowledging that there are similarities between European nations and that that being part of any European nation at that the least must be people with Europeans in it , seems like common sense. Your politics for most people are your biology, In short, if you want Spain it must have people of Spanish blood and culture. France, French and so on. Some slack is possible but too much change, you cease to exist

    I can see real time where I live, California it becoming an affluent Mexico with all its problems of filth, theft and stupidity right before my eyes. That immigration is an invasion and if European nations wish to remain European, they must not allow very many non Europeans into them. I don't want that, therefore I react. Control your borders or die.

    I suspect in the case of the Christian elements of reaction, they really want a Christendom imposed on White people by force but cannot admit that,
    Personally I'm influenced a lot more by something like structural-functionalism though that term is new to me along with a Volkish pro European point of view. My people have been European for millenniums, I'd like them to stay that way.

    The problem with the current system than is two fold, 1st The Cathedral to use a Moldbug term is unstable and harmful 2nd It harms my Volk. If it did not do these things, why would I care? In its socially democratic form The Cathedral arguably the most Christian civilization ever. Its inherent instability though had produced toxic levels of oligarchy and fun house mirror Christian compassion mixed with nonsensical Enlightenment equalism which is a problem. Otherwise its damned effective, on par with Christianity itself in terms of spread and social accomplishment (mostly abolishing hunger in the West via handouts)

    As re: abortion, my personal opinion is I don't care, I think its abhorrent on many levels but weighing the outcome, at this point in time, its a net plus for society. Now I'm nominally a Christian and while the Bible requires certain conduct, it also requires we take care our own first and foremost. That is my job, caring for enemies is not and whether they want to be, upon hitting puberty, the majority of people will be foes of civilization. Its not their fault and some can be saved, maybe but I'm not a minister and we have with abortion, plenty of people to try if that's your bag.

    That said, my views on the afterlife are well not the same. If there is one the great mystery probably cares nothing for what we do here and the Gods/Ancestors have more reasons to dislike me for than my indifference to the actions of my foes on themselves.

    As for race conscious Rightists, most of us are like that. Different races are different and many of us I suspect would be content to have nations made up only of our own kind and maybe a few invited folks.Only the NDSAP 2.0 , 14-88 crowd that is tangentially part of the our sphere are actual Leftists. They share some goals with some of us but aren't of our group per se. I'm not entirely sure of that either. The kind of society say Harold Covington's Northwest Front espouses is functionally indistinguishable from reaction in many ways. His focus is on race not culture but kinder, küche und kirche along with Ehre Tugend wird is reaction itself.Beyond those six and need for systemic reform to make it happen I'm hard pressed to see what there is to react too.


  3. People who are persistent commentators at various outlets gain reputations, so long as they are not using 'anonymous'.

    “In its socially democratic form The Cathedral arguably the most Christian civilization ever”

    If so, then satan was a most loyal servant of God.

    “Now I'm nominally a Christian”

    So, that would be apostate then. Nominal means in name only. Something in name only is good for nothing. Those who do not believe that Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead ought to make this point clear, for it is the arbiter of whether one may be called a Christian or not.

    I am for looking out for one's own first, but this does not change the moral quality of abortion for anyone. You'll notice the article being criticized takes a racial utilitarian point of view. I'm criticizing this bankrupt ethical system that Fisher constructs for himself. It's devoid of any value. I don't care if, by the numbers, abortion is helping some unrelated 'cause'. This is moral obtuseness. By this logic, Dylan Roof dindu nuffin.

    A Christendom imposed by force? How horrifying. What gumption that Christians would wish the same that every other wretched interest group on this planet wishes. There is no neutrality, there is no free state. All is imposition, so you'll forgive our authoritarianism, but please don't think we hide it. I'll gladly admit, if a 'black metal enthusiast' burned an Orthodox Church, his head on a spike is something I'd like to see, and I'm sure my kin in Russia wouldn't find the task too demanding.


  4. I'm not going to make the Satanist argument but at least prior to the New Testament, Satan was God's servant. In any case nothing Satan did was without Gods permission. God allowed Adam and even to eat of the tree of knowledge, God allowed Satan to tempt, God permitted Satan to torment and so on. It would have been nothing for God to tell Satan to stop and prevent him from doing his acts. God chose not too for reasons of his own we need not go over, You cannot rebel against someone all powerful unless they allow it.

    As for the Cathedral, has anyone done more to succor the poor or to try and fill human needs than the Cathedral? Where they fail is in matters of spirit and understanding, not intent. And yes sexually and morally its a distortion of Christian teachings but that kind of hubris and error requires no help from an Adversary to make . The Cathedral is trying to bring peace , happiness and prosperity to everyone on some level but its impossible and too much of what they take goes against human nature and good order .It also like any movement always goes too far, homosexuality leads to transgender acceptance leads to child molestation. That is inherently harmful. Improving people usually is

    And of course in name only. I do struggle with issues of faith. Hell so did Mother Theresa quite often and she gave her life to service.I don't have a fraction of her righteousness My problem is functionally I think Christianity is based on error. I'll skip the long rant but biggest “event” The Resurrection is so easily and logically explained that it has no value as proof. Hard to be a devout Christian if see that seminal event as ordinary . I live as a Christian and believe in the Divine but the rest is too much for me. I'm working on it.

    Now re: Roof we aren't at war with the decent folks in that Church and as such Dylan Roof was a murderer. He'll get what coming to him .

    But in wartime? Depending on who is in there e might be a hero. Ethics and morals an behavior are quite contextual even in Christianity. As a functionalist there would be no difference to me between say a mission attacking a Church to get an enemy killing innocents than a drone strike on a Mosque killing them to get a bad guy. Dead innocent are dead innocents

    To you last point. Good for you I don't have an issue with an honest desire for power. I applaud it. Of course desiring ones enemies gone is very human and noble. I'm sure some rabid secularist is wondering if the new CRISPR technologically can be used to remove religiosity at the genetic level

    In any case the discussion has been enjoyable to say the least.


  5. Apologies but something I forgot, I don't have a problem with a racialist or utilitarian Christian or Heathen moral system so long as they work which is I think why we disagree on so many things.

    As a Christian, one must be opposed to abortion as opposed to God's Law but like the Cathedral, Christians also have Univeralist views and as such assume that the ways of Rome are or should be the ways of the world. Natural and logical but this will create friction.

    As Christianity basically leaves the developed world in any strength its going to get even stranger out there. This will be quite interesting if Christian is Eastern European, African and Latin with the former fading

    In any case Christianity doesn't really own reaction, its an uneasy truce between Heathens, Christians , and assorted Secularists . However its going to be a long while before its anything but an academic argument and as such, getting reactionaries of any kind into power is the 1st goal.

    After that and order is assured we can commence with the infighting.


  6. God allows free will because it is intrinsically valuable. Evil men, and evil entities act on their own volition. That God honors that volition does nothing to legitimize it.

    I have heard no credible explanations for the Resurrection that were more plausible than its supernatural nature, but this really isn't the outlet for such a debate. I'll let the great apologists make that case.

    I don't desire power. Believe me, if I desired power I would have gone into party politics and talked about the virtues of gay marriage. This kind of extremism is very unlikely to lead to any personal benefit on my part.

    You are incorrect to say that Christians hold the universal application of Rome as true. I do not. I think Christianity itself is applicable to all people, but that different peoples will understand it in different ways and structure their societies with that understanding in mind. This is why I have said if China is to become Christian then it must embrace a sinicized form of Christianity.

    Reaction is for the most part Christians of some stripe, and secular anti-secularists. Even the atheists acknowledge the power and application of religion to the functioning of a state. You will not find Richard Dawkins among them. Neo-Pagans of the 'wolves of vinland' variety are not Reactionaries in any true sense of the word. They are white nationalists, but as I have said, that is not equivalent to Reaction. There are a few perennialist 'pagans', but that is nothing like Varg Vikerness or other undesirables. There can exist Reactionaries of other religious stripes, I have met a few, but Reaction itself has its roots in Christian monarchists who resisted the French Revolution. From the start, it has been about seeing that change overturned completely. The racial question comes a long way down the line of that change, as it wasn't a concern until the last 60 years or so, at least not as it is presently constituted.


  7. “In any case Christianity doesn't really own reaction, its an uneasy truce between Heathens, Christians , and assorted Secularists.”

    Actually, Christianity *does* own the alt-right. And the entire right. And the whole idea of a “right”. And the entire Western civilization, which Christians created based on Christian ideals. Neo-pagans who strut around telling the rest of the right that Christians had better know their place in the movement are like those blacks who scream for race war, apparently having never seen a census or figuring out that they're not just 13% of the population, but they're the 13% that nobody else likes, so if the race war ever really does start, they're shit out of luck.

    So please, stop LARPing and get a clue: Here in reality, nothing genuinely rightist will ever get anywhere in the West without Christianity as an integral part of it and without large numbers of Christians on board. If you believe otherwise, then say hi to Mr. Roarke for me, because you're living on Fantasy Island.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s