You can order Greg Johnson’s Loving Our Own here
1,382 words
A bandit hides a sack of gold by burying it in an orchard. Centuries pass. A farmer planting a tree discovers the bandit’s gold. Was this meant to happen? It seems not. The bandit’s purpose was to hide the gold. The farmer’s purpose was to plant a tree. When their purposes crossed, the gold was discovered. But it was neither man’s intention. It just turned out that way. We call such an event an “accident.”
If you find this argument unconvincing, the proper response is to offer evidence that the discovery was no accident. At this point, however, many people will dismiss the requirement to supply empirical evidence. Instead, they will declare a general metaphysical axiom: “There are no accidents.”
You might have a shot proving that a particular incident was no accident. But good luck in your battle with the great metaphysicians.
One summer day, a woman leaves her child in his car seat while she gets her nails done, picks up a lotto ticket, and buys some smokes and a twelve-pack of beer. When she returns to the car, her child is dead. To all appearances, it looks like stupidity and neglect.
But you feel sorry for the woman and wish to excuse her. (For some reason, you feel nothing for the child.) You are certain that some socioeconomic factors must have been at work here. But when challenged to supply empirical evidence, you make a sweeping metaphysical claim: “Nothing is what it seems.”
Again, you might have been able to explain how this particular incident is more complex than it seems. But instead, you have decided to take sides in a metaphysical debate raging since antiquity. Good luck on that.
You are relaxing in your backyard, watching sparrows at a birdbath. Suddenly, a shadow appears. A hawk swoops down on the birdbath, sending the sparrows fleeing. Later you learn that across town at the same time, a brown delivery truck has crashed into a schoolbus filled with children. You are convinced that the events are connected, and not just in your mind. You believe the hawk was an omen. But when challenged to give evidence, you instead make a metaphysical claim: “Everything is connected.”
Once again, you are far more likely to establish that these two events are connected than to settle an ancient metaphysical debate.
Arguing from metaphysical axioms rather than empirical facts is very common in political commentary:
- Somalians loot social welfare programs.
- Killers are turned loose to kill again.
- Illegal aliens roam the country raping and killing.
Perhaps you believe that this is all intentional:
- The programs were created in order to be looted.
- The killers were turned loose in order to kill again.
- The borders were opened in order to unleash rapists and murderers.
This is a twofold thesis. First, you are arguing that certain bad outcomes are intentional. Second, you are arguing that the people responsible for them are evil.
When asked for evidence for these extraordinary claims, you offer a metaphysical axiom: “The purpose of a system is what it does.” If something happens, it was meant to happen. There are no accidents. If there seem to be accidents, well, nothing is as it seems.
Again, this seems to be an easy out, but in fact it is very difficult to prove that everything that happens, happens intentionally. Obviously, some things don’t seem that way. Thus to make your point, you must convince me to trust you, not my lying eyes.
All these metaphysical axioms have something in common:
- There are no accidents.
- Nothing is what it seems.
- Everything is connected.
- Everything is intentional.
They are the axioms of a conspiratorial approach to politics.
It is politically expedient to claim that all problems are intentional and one’s opponents are evil, because that implies that everything can be fixed when the right people are put in charge. Presumably, that would be you. If the problems aren’t fixed, there’s a simple explanation: the right guys don’t have enough power. Give them more power, and things will be fine.
Conspiracies are real. They happen all the time. Not a day goes by when I am not plotting and scheming with others. Why, then, am I not ruling the world? That’s because more powerful people have other plans. Why aren’t they ruling the world, then? Well, some of them are.
But aside from that, everybody’s plans conflict, so if you want to make a sweeping metaphysical claim, it might be safer to say that “Nothing happens exactly as intended” rather than “Everything that happens was intended to happen that way.”
Since conspiracies are real and happen all the time, there are rules of evidence for establishing whether they take place. Quite a few legal cases, for instance, involve conspiracies. And believe me, if you sit down in court and argue that the Joker conspired with the Riddler based on nothing more than metaphysical axioms, you will be laughed out of court.
Sadly, the standards on the internet are much looser. There, you can make factual claims without any empirical evidence at all, just by deducing them from metaphysical axioms . . . all to thunderous applause.
How do evil things happen without being intended by diabolically evil agents?
An older single woman with not much going on in her life begins adopting stray cats. Feeding them makes her feel powerful and kind. Thus she adopts more and more cats. Eventually, she has too many cats to take care of. Her house becomes filthy. Her cats go hungry and thirsty. Sick cats are left to slink off somewhere and die. Finally, animal control is called in. A hundred miserable cats and kittens are rescued, and the corpses of a dozen others are hauled away. The woman is arrested. As she is led away, she protests that she was just being kind to animals.
Was all this suffering the woman’s purpose? Was she simply evil? Obviously, she ended up torturing a lot of animals. But that’s not what she set out to do. At a certain point, however, it should have become clear to her that she wasn’t being kind to animals at all. But if her real purpose was not to do evil, then what was it?
Pet hoarders are a variety of what are called “co-dependent enablers.” The classic example of an enabler is someone who “helps” an alcoholic by cleaning up his messes and bailing him out of trouble, thus enabling him to keep drinking. They harm people by helping them maintain self-destructive lifestyles.
What is their motive? Enablers think they are being altruistic. But at a certain point, it should become clear that they are actually doing harm. At that point, a rational and responsible person would stop.
Enablers continue, however, because in reality something is much more important to them than helping others, namely, feeling good about themselves. Enabling makes them feel moral and powerful. In short, they are on an ego trip, and the pleasure they derive from it is so powerful that they are capable of deluding themselves into thinking they are good people even as they create misery.
If you want to understand what makes liberals tick, just replace the cats with Somalians or criminals or illegal aliens. This is how nice people create world-destroying evil.
Does this mean that there are no evil people in politics? Does this mean that white genocide is just a ghastly misunderstanding?
Not at all. There are plenty of diabolically evil people in politics. But they wouldn’t be able to accomplish very much without legions of well-meaning, vain, and self-indulgent fools.
Why does this matter?
If you believe that every evil is intentional, you are magnifying both the efficacy and the malevolence of your enemies. At a certain point, however, this becomes demoralizing. There’s a certain genre of conspiratorial commentary that I call “Elders of Zion fan fiction.” No matter what happens, the fix is always in. Such people wallow in complete impotence yet feel smugly superior to those who think they can actually do something.
But sometimes the man behind the curtain is just a cat lady on an ego trip.
How do you tell them apart? One way is to confront them with the evil they are doing, then see if they persist.
13 comments
This is a good article.
I use the expressions, “There is more to the picture than meets the eye”, “Everything is under control”, and “Reality is stranger than fiction”. I was already thinking of the Wizard of Oz before you mentioned the man behind the curtain. Maybe I’ve been on Youtube too long, but I’m now thinking in terms of Archons and Simulation theory. Maybe there is a breakaway civilization that has been hellbent after WWII on destroying the Anglo-American West because as you said in previous articles: “It isn’t nihilism if nothing deserves to survive”.
Interesting, as always. Thank you, Greg.
This is more philosophical than political, but I would make the argument that pathological coenablers are in fact evil. I can never actually know anyone else’s intentions. For most of us, even our own intentions are sometimes difficult to untangle due to desires and drives that we prefer not to acknowledge (i.e. the Jungian shadow). Because intentions can’t really be known, I can only really judge morality based on outcome. I first came to that conclusion through Nietzsche, but it also has much earlier roots, as in the Biblical “by their fruits shall ye know them.” This perspective has limitations, but it has served me well in avoiding destructive people.
Ran the risk of bloviating a little there, but just some of the thoughts this provoked in me.
If enablers persist, yes, they are evil. And a lot of them do persist. Enabling is an ego trip. Everyone enjoys that. But the pathological narcissist is so resistant to revising his self-image that he will lie, manipulate, scapegoat, even kill to maintain it.
Let me quote from Blondie in Accidents Never Happen:
No I don’t believe in luck
No I don’t believe in circumstance no more
Accidents never happen in a perfect world
So I won’t believe in luck
This is actually logical. For a woman who is happy in love, for whom the uncertainties of getting to know the man who makes her happy have resolved in the best way, everything seems perfect. In her perfect world, how can there be accidents, things that don’t add up? No, everything was always leading to this, and now she sees it.
So much for the blissful idiocy of women in love, but as I look around the world, at the progress of White genocide, at the Russo-Ukrainian war, at the corruption and destruction of youth, at, say, the contents of the Epstein files, it seems to me that we’re not living in a perfect world.
So I will believe in luck. So I will believe in circumstance. So I will believe that in a world that daily demonstrates its radical imperfection there are not only things that are bad because they were planned that way but there are things that came together senselessly, absurdly, for no reason. There is no reason why a very imperfect world should offer guarantees that that can’t happen.
Less metaphysically, and back to the Epstein files, we’ve seen some of the scrap notes of some of the people who really do work together to create and maintain great evils, and people of that nature are not planning everything. They’re not that wise, they’re not that smart, and they are too sex-obsessed, too goy-hostile, and generally too nutty to keep everything straight.
If this conspiracy, the Epstein conspiracy, is real, a lot of other conspiracy theories have to be wrong.
I agree with your point.
And Eat to the Beat is the best Blondie album.
The old cat lady can only hoard cats because she has the resources for it. Now that a lot of old ladies are wealthy, there’s a lot of old cat ladies. I do simply think material abundance can explain a lot of our problems.
Alcoholism only became a major societal problem with the industrial revolution, after which distilled spirts could be manufactured in large enough quantities at a low enough price that poor factory workers could afford to get wasted each night. There was no serious Temperance movement before the 18th century because peasants and poor labourers simply couldn’t afford alcoholism. Although the standard of living expanded and he had more purchasing power, the average labourer was tempted by an addictive vice his ancestors didn’t have. Conservatives and Christians at the time, like white nationalist’s today blaming racial traitors, branded the urban alcoholic as simply an irreprehensible evil. The old lady hoarding cats likewise would be too busy engaged with the struggle of life in the past too, and her selfless altruism there would be somewhat adaptive instead of a detriment. She would be the type of woman to go without food during a hard famine to save the life of her children and nephews. She’s not now necessarily an irreprehensible evil, it’s just that her instincts have turned pathological with a change of the environment. The same way the psychopathic tendency of black Africans wins tribal wars in west Africa, but lands them in prison in western society.
And yeah, a lot of these white traitors do know whites will be replaced and go extinct, but they get psychologically addicted to the benefits of being a traitor. The hierarchical culture of the third world means that when they migrate into the first world, non-whites will grovel and beg before their superiors that brought them in. Western managers and business owners are met with a taste of servile sycophancy they never knew was possible, and that’s psychologically addictive. It’s also why it’s so often Indians that the business class prefers, because they are the most hierarchical in that manner. “YES SAAR, YOU’RE AMAZING SAAR” for 30 years from over a hundred people (the employees and their relatives) and being treated like a mini god is quite an ego trip. Especially after trying to tardwrangle local teenagers working part time who will be indifferent to you, or even openly despise you. A lot of the times it’s not even a money thing, many of these medium sized business owners are well off in that regard, and a lot of these third worlders aren’t particularly productive. The business owners just enjoy rocking up to work and being worshipped. I have seen a racialist business owner that despised non-whites, and who still regularly says racialist things, being unable to resist flooding his company with migrant labour, he had a taste of one and then got addicted to the new dynamic. They justify it with narratives of local labour being lazy or the ones they have being “the good ones”, but you can witness them reveling in the power disparity and being a patron to these people.
The more wealthy you are, the more material abundance you have, the more you can avoid the consequences of your actions. More wealth for a cat lady simply means more cats, a pay rise at work means the alcoholic can drink six nights instead of four, more wealth for whites in the modern world simply means a faster great replacement. The British lowered the price of Opium from a luxury good to a common good in China, and that devastated their society. It took until they had an authoritarian government to get that under control. The dark truth is many whites will choose multiracialism the same way many people choose meth or gambling, even fully knowing it can destroy them. I wouldn’t just count on people knowing the truth about race being enough to be on our side.
I think the analogy of drug addiction works reasonably well for a shorthand explanation to the psychological causes of white dispossesion. The psychological gratification is immediate, and the consequences aren’t until later, just like with anything addictive.
Not at all. There are plenty of diabolically evil people in politics. But they wouldn’t be able to accomplish very much without legions of well-meaning, vain, and self-indulgent fools.
Similar to how drug use empowers mexican cartels that torture people to death. The most evil people always profit off of vice at the top, and the first rule of dealing is that you don’t get high off your own supply. Israel maintaining its racial purity while dealing out addictive narratives of a false multiracial future is that exact double standard.
Another really good comment. Thanks.
Great article! I still believe that there is a cadre of evil jews operating out there, and that the Protocols Of The Learned Elders Of Zion are authentic. The type of people that you describe are just useful fools to the jews. 🙃
Peter Schweizer in his book “Invisible Coup” explains WHY the ruling elites, incl. the Catholic Church, oligarchs, politicians, academics, business persons, etc. all want to import more and more non-Western and non-White migrants in the US and in another Western countries.
Well, I like cats, and I do not like migrants. But there is a solution for both problems. Stray cats should be sterilized, and everything will be OK. The migrants should be let in only when are agree to be sterilized and everything will be OK.
Good article. This kind of thinking–treating every outcome of as intentional–is a key part of conspiratorial thinking. I can’t think of a better example of someone who relies on this kind of thinking than Mike Enoch of TheRightStuff.biz. He recently tweeted this:
“It really doesn’t surprise me that we now have confirmation that the alt-right was a Jewish project, with Bannon running point, to get disenfranchised racists to vote for Trump. It worked and to some extent is still working like a charm.”
He speaks as if the “alt-right” was not exploited or manipulated, not that there were some elements of it that were more problematic than others, but that it was a big conspiracy from the beginning. He does this a lot. I remember the moment I finally gave up on TRS: During one of the podcasts, the panel was discussing the obesity epidemic in the USA. Enoch reasoned that the fact that there is an obesity epidemic is proof that “they” (Jews) want it to happen. As if the realities of suburban life, car dependence and processed food don’t exist. As if Jews are evil wizards with unlimited powers for malice. It was genuinely surreal listening to a clearly high-IQ man devolve into this kind of madness.
I appreciate Dr. Johnson pointing out this kind of reasoning bias. I wish more people would listen. Online discourse tends to favor people with the most extreme and far reaching conclusions.
Well said, and thank you.
Check this piece out too: https://counter-currents.com/2020/01/the-paranoid-style-in-white-nationalism/
A lot of the paranoia in TRS circles and also with Richard Spencer comes from extreme narcissism and mania. Back in 2016, these people seemed to think that they were destined to rule America. When that didn’t work out, an explanation was required. Since narcissists try to maintain a positive self-image at all costs, they aren’t good at self-criticism. Thus their failures must be the fault of others. The narcissist can’t believe that others might just pass them by or take no notice. No, the others were focused on stopping them. Why? Since there can be no good reason for regarding these people as defective, the explanation has to be malice. Many different people can’t be drawing the same conclusion independently, because that would indicate there really is something wrong with them. So everything must be coordinated by a malevolent spider at the center of a web of influence. You see how it works.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.