Tuesday, October 10, 2017

A Reply To An Incoherent Argument

Answering rambling incoherence.

An Alt Right blog attempts to make arguments about “autochonthous” peoples.  I respond.

Of course some argue that European populations aren’t really indigenous, since Europeans have invaded and colonized one another’s societies for thousands of years. The indigenous people of England, for example, were invaded and colonized by Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Vikings, and Normans before the present waves of Africans and South Asians. So why should the descendants of Anglo-Saxons or Normans be considered any more “indigenous” than Jamaicans and Pakistanis?
The problem with this argument, of course, is that it still admits that some Europeans are indigenous. Moreover, since all European peoples are descended from the same racial stock, which is indigenous to Europe, when Europeans move from one part of Europe to another, they are not “displacing indigenous populations.” They are the indigenous population, which is merely reshuffling itself.

Of course “indigenous” has already been defined, in a reasonable manner, on my Western Destiny blog. But as I have “nothing useful to say” (as opposed to endlessly repetitive ethnonationalist blather), let’s ignore it, and make arguments of the fungibility of Europeans that (1) essentially refute the entire ethnonationalist argument in Europe, (2) goes way beyond anything a “crazed” pan-Europeanist like myself would say, and (3) if I had actually written anything like that myself, I would have been accuse by the usual suspects of some sort of “Medicist” agenda.

First, it presupposes that mere presence in a territory is morally meaningful. The autochthony argument states that the first inhabitants of a land have a clean title. They did not have to displace anyone else through violence and trickery. Later occupants are illegitimate if they displace the first occupants and usurp their territories.
But if mere first presence in a territory confers rights, then why is this confined to biologically modern humans? Other animals are merely present where they live as well. Didn’t Cro-Magnon man displace the Neanderthal? Didn’t mammals displace the dinosaurs? Aren’t practically all living things illegitimate interlopers in previously occupied ecological niches, until we get back to the original denizens of the primordial soup? But does it make sense to regard the entire history of life on this planet as a ghastly moral offense? So much for evolution, I guess.

What a silly, juvenile, intellectually lazy, and morally obtuse argument.  As humans, with interests as evolved organisms, should we equate our own interests, and the morality of our genetic continuity, with that of dinosaurs or of the “primordial soup?”  Salter in OGI dismantles the “animal rights” argument from the standpoint of human genetic interests.  And then, inconsistently, after the snide remark “So much for evolution, I guess,” we get a cartoonish misunderstanding of natural selection:

A Darwinist, of course, would argue that one organism can displace another only by being better adapted for survival. Thus evolution is a process of improvement…

Improvement?  First, a “Darwinist” is not “arguing” anything.  A “Darwinist” supports a theory that is bolstered by many decades of observation and experiment. Organisms do replace each other, and that replacement is itself “being better adapted for survival” – the “being better adapted” is not the “mechanism” of replacement, better said the other way around.  Second, there needs not be value-implied terms like “improvement” used.  “Better adapted” is with respect to a particular environment at a given time.  The environment can be altered virtually instantly (e.g., volcanic eruption, fire, a bulldozer passing through), after which the “improvement” can become a “hindrance.”

…rather than a fall from an original state of innocence. 

Oh, that Golden Age!  We are now in the Age of Iron!  Kali Yuga!  Savitri Devi!  The men who can’t tell time!  That’s the reality, and don’t you forget it!

Social Darwinists argue that the conquest of the dark races by whites is evolution in action. And, if the darker races are now turning the table and conquering whites, that too is evolution in action. For Darwinists, success in the struggle for power is by definition the best outcome, no matter who ends up on top.

Stop confusing “Darwinists” – people who support a scientific theory that is backed by impressive data – and “Social Darwinists” – meme promoters who commit the naturalistic fallacy.

The autochthony argument holds, in essence, that the first organism on the scene is in the right, and all who follow are illegitimate interlopers. The Darwinist would argue that the last organism on the scene is in the right, simply because it is successful, and that all that came before have no legitimate claims, simply because they failed. Both arguments are equally morally absurd, because there is more to right than just being present at the beginning or the end of a struggle for power.

And what are these other moral rights?  More laziness.

Second, the autochthony argument does not distinguish between occupying and appropriating territory. Just being on a piece of land does not necessarily make it one’s own. To appropriate land, one has to do something. One has to make something of it, and in doing so, one takes responsibility for it.

The non-White invaders into White lands today will claim they are making something of the land, and taking responsibility for it.

Third, the autochthony argument also ignores the distinction between nomadism and settled occupancy. Often times, the first people were merely passing through. Nomads don’t own land, they merely inhabit it, as do the buffalo. They do little to it, and they take little or no responsibility for it. Nomads are less tied to a piece of ground than settled people, and nomads can share the use of the same region, whereas settled ways of life require exclusive ownership. This is not to say that nomads have no interests and rights that more settled people need to respect. But to own land, is it sufficient merely to be on it, or does one have to do something with it—i.e., to improve it and take responsibility for it?

From the standpoint of genetic interests, that’s not relevant.  One could argue that settled peoples increase carrying capacity more than nomads, but that’s not a moral argument per se.

Fourth, the autochthony argument overlooks the fact that if one owns land, one can therefore disown it. If indigenous peoples actually own their homelands, then they can alienate them to newcomers. For instance, not all North American natives were dispossessed through wars of aggression. Many natives began by selling some of their lands to newcomers, and only later did conflicts arise. Moreover, American Indians were sometimes dispossessed after losing wars they had started. There is a huge moral difference between stealing land outright and securing one’s own people by dispossessing and banishing aggressive and implacable enemies. Sometimes indigenous peoples lose their lands fair and square.

Well then, can’t the same be said of Western peoples today?  They elect politicians that promote the dispossession of their own people.  Wasn’t Merkel re-elected? They rally to “welcome refugees.”  They sit and do nothing as they and their posterity lose control of the lands won, in one manner of another, by their forebears.

Fifth, the autochthony argument presupposes that legitimate ownership derives solely from the past (first occupancy) rather than from the future (what one is likely to do with it). For instance, even if the American Indians were the first people on this continent, they weren’t doing much with it.

So, rights to land depend upon what someone else thinks about what you’ve done with it?  Is this the Greg Johnson Law of Historical Eminent Domain?  Hey, maybe Muslims don’t think that European infidels are doing much with their territory, being unbelievers who do not follow the Koran.  Therefore, they should be disposessed.  Why not?  Maybe the Chinese think they can develop Vancouver better than the White natives.  Yellow replaces White.  Why not?  Who decides?

It strikes me as a moralistic absurdity to declare that the farms, factories, highways, power plants, towns and cities of America, plus all of the cultural and technological achievements of Americans, from bluegrass music to the space program, are somehow illegitimate because there was a thin population of Stone Age people on the continent when our ancestors first arrived.

There’s a difference between declaring those things “illegitimate” and declaring that the fundamental genetic interests of Native Americans were harmed, in an irreversible and existential manner, by White colonization of America.

Even if we grant that first occupancy confers rights, doesn’t later use also confer rights? And what is more important: how our people acquired our homelands or what we made of them? Given that the first occupants of all lands are primitives, whereas later occupants are usually more socially and technologically advanced, doesn’t the autochthony argument contain a built-in bias against civilization, progress, and the races that can produce and sustain them? Why should whites, of all peoples, accept such a stacked moral deck? Encounters between radically different peoples almost always end up badly. But at least if one creates something great, the suffering and strife need not be in vain.

Some would think that a Eurabian Ummah is something great to be created out of the “suffering and strife” of European dispossession.  Who judges?  What value system is used and why?

Sixth, the autochthony argument is usually offered in bad faith, as part of a swindle. In the United States, for instance, American Indians who did not suffer from the acts of white colonists in centuries past, demand apologies and favors from whites (including recent immigrants), who never did anything to harm an Indian.
The last thing these Indians want is for whites to take their guilt trip so seriously that they erase the wealth they created and leave the continent as their ancestors found it. Instead, Indians wish to increase their share in the bounty of white civilization through moral blackmail, which just happens to impeach the legitimacy of that civilization’s very foundations. The Indians are untroubled by the moral contradictions of their position, but their aim is not justice but unearned wealth.

That may well describe the “Indians” of today – many of whom are part-White and even mostly-White hybrids. But I imagine that the pure-blooded Indians fighting dispossession in the 19th century would have been satisfied just to have their old ways back, their continent back, and see the “pale faces” long gone.

In truth, indigenous peoples who present themselves as “historical” victims aren’t victims at all. 

Even Salter in his writings spoke of the dispossession of Native Americans and that the wealth brought by Europeans doesn’t compensate for the loss of an entire continent (!) for the exclusive use of the expansion of your progeny.  What kind of absolute nonsense denies genuine victimhood to peoples deprived of carrying capacity land?  I guess we can just turn around and say that “diversity” and “the economic benefits of youthful immigrants to Europe” means that dispossession of the original peoples of that continent is justified and Europeans are not victims?

I do not argue Whites need to feel guilty or give the land back.  But they should not dismiss legitimate claims of victimhood either. Native American dispossession happened.  From their perspective, it was a world historical calamity.  Why belittle that reality?

For instance, there is every reason to reverse the recent colonization of Europe and European diaspora societies by non-whites. There is every reason to reverse Chinese colonization of Tibet. In every case, the colonists have homelands to which they can return. 

Native Americans would argue that Whites can return to a Europe in which non-White colonization has been reversed.

…we can create an ethnonationalist world order…

I veto your dream.


In another post by the same author at the same blog, we observe the usual ethnonationalist hypocrisy and incoherence.  A few brief excerpts:

For visitors and temporary residents, white and non-white alike, as well as for white minority groups living within their borders, ethnonationalists do not want or encourage assimilation. 

Alright, but then:

Immigration between white societies should be minimized. Practically all cases would be due to marriage.

Let's have an "out" for certain ethnonationalist ethnic imperialists who live in other people's nations and take the women of these other people.

Expatriates from other white nations should be allowed, in limited numbers, as long as they respect the dominant culture and the natives need not interact with them.

This allows ethnic imperialists from certain European ethnies to colonize the "warm clines" of other European ethnies.  Of course, respecting "the dominant culture" includes Deasy disrespecting Bulgarians after visiting Bulgaria, and Leonard promoting intra-Italian separatism while living in Italy.

In addition, are members of that blog, who are not ethnic Hungarians, living in Hungary not interacting with any natives?

However, once whites feel that we have a future again, we will be able to take the risk of accepting less than fully homogeneous societies…

Let's go through all the trouble of over-throwing the System just so we eventually can start the same problems all over again.