Circular Logic:

Liberals love to indulge in circular logic.

"Starting with the assumption that all races are biologically equal, they then point out inequalities in outcome, which therefore must mean there were inequalities of opportunity. The inequalities of opportunity then justify giving greater opportunities to the unequal races -- ie affirmative action and handouts -- to offset the deprivation of opportunities they must be suffering under. Even racial or ethnic pride or organizations fall under this rubric -- organizing together a group of people who have been deprived of their rightful opportunities so that they have an advantage -- a positive opportunity -- over their more privileged competitors is only fair. It is redressing the imbalance. However, whites cannot have any racial or ethnic pride, any collective or community organizers, anyone lobbying for their group interests, because they already have more than enough opportunities. Giving whites such a powerful tool to expand their discrimination and oppression is counter-productive, whereas giving non-whites the exact same tool will help eliminate the discrimination and oppression that is causing the inequalities in outcome.

Once all non-whites have equal outcomes to whites, liberals reason, we can then get rid of 'opportunity providing' tools like welfare, affirmative action, ethnic community organizing, and so on. Whites who complain about all the unfair advantages blacks and hispanics receive just don't get it. These advantages are only temporary and only in light of the persistent inequality non-whites suffer under. If whites don't want non-whites to have all these privileges, we should hurry up and stop being racist oppressors who keep non-whites down. Then all of these tools wouldn't be necessary and we could become the color blind society conservatives say they want so much. Whites who complain about black privilege must be joking -- white privilege is evident all around us. Look who's rich and who's poor, look who's in jail, look who goes to college and who doesn't, look who controls the government well beyond proportional demographic representation, look at unemployment rates between the races, look at length of life between the races, look whose hair is naturally straight so doesn't have to buy cosmetic products, etc.

There isn't a single study that won't show glaring white privileges everywhere in our society. Being born white is a golden ticket to a heavenly, easy ride that non-whites can only imagine as they look out of their bleak, cold, roach infested Chicago high rises.

There is nothing more pathetic than whites whining about non-white privilege. Not only do they have the effrontery to ignore all the privileges and inequalities that benefit their kind, they manage to pick on the weakest and most oppressed group in America, blacks and hispanics, as somehow the source of their 'problems.' These utter losers who attack the defenseless and blame the powerless are the epitome of white trash. Whites have everything provided for them on a silver platter, their lives are infinitely easier than any non-white life. If they have any problems, they must be self-caused. If they aren't self-caused, for instance if they come from a poor family, they should unite with poor blacks and hispanics as spiritual, mutually oppressed brothers and oppose the true powers that be -- the white rich, privileged, elite class who is keeping them down. What possible reason would a poor white person have to hate blacks and Hispanics, who are in the same boat and have absolutely no power or authority? Only bigotry, mindless prejudice, stupidity of the highest magnitude. If only these white trash voters would vote for their own interests in the democratic party like the enlightened blacks and hispanics do, maybe we could cause some real change and erase the barriers between the classes once and for all. But so long as they are hung up on their petty racism, hatred, and mindless self-sacrificial lashing out against those even weaker and more pitiful than themselves, America will remain a broken promise."

Liberals make two mistakes in their reasoning. A) The races are not biologically equal. Heck, the very fact that whites and asians have some neanderthal admixture but blacks don't, should draw a huge biological difference between the races. Consult Rushton's Race, Evolution, and Behavior for more biological race differences.

B) Many whites aren't looking at things materialistically. When they complain, it is about rather arcane subjects unrelated to their material well being. Many white nationalists are in fact wealthy, employed in prestigious jobs, have a happy family life, have never been affected by crime, and so on. They are worried about their brethren who might not be so fortunate as them -- and they are worried about white people's souls. So what if we're richer if we lose the family unit? If we consider ourselves villains and the 'cancer of human history?' If we can't tell the truth? If the beautiful and the sublime is transmogrified into the titillating or the obscene, like with modern art?

Many worries and cares white nationalists hold really have nothing to do with race. What they see is the liberal/leftist forces of darkness using race as a wedge to disrupt traditional society, our culture and heritage with roots that stretch deep into the past are all torn up and left exposed to the vagaries of nature because of the sudden flood of unrelated, uncultured strangers invading from every side. How can we raise our children according to our values, how can we find a good marriage partner for them in the future who will give birth to grandchildren like ourselves, and raise them according to our values? It used to be taken as a given that hundreds of years should pass with nothing fundamental changing from generation to generation. Your farm would pass to your sons, who would pass it to their sons. So would your religion, your music, your dances, your harvest festivals, your manner of dress, and your genes. Those who came long after you would still be 90% just like you, biologically. This is easily possible in an ethnically close-knit society. It simply isn't possible in a post 1960's America.

Sometimes traditions no longer make any sense in light of new technologies. The birth control pill, for instance, was an immediate game changer. But many traditions do make sense, and it is painful to see them fade away. Even worse, many genes are beautiful works of art that evolution has spent millenia honing to as fine a creation as the white race, and it is painful to see it smashed so blithely and thoughtlessly into so many pieces that, like humpty dumpty, it can never be put back together again. No one can even explain what great advantages we are getting by smashing everything the past worked to create. Is America really enriched through the importation of non-high school graduating, non-english speaking, low IQ, poor, tax eating high crime hispanics? Must the 40,000 years of sacrifice and hard work our forefathers put into the white race be smashed for this? For the sake of sombreros and beans?

There are probably two types of white nationalists. Those who, previously, would have been devout Christians and probably formed the clergy -- or even earlier, those who would have spread out their hearts to their pagan deities in prayer and performed the sacrifices for the village. These spiritually minded thinkers in the modern age however, learned the new truths of evolution, atheism, geology, genetics, etc, and had to abandon religion as a useless dead-end, spiritually and intellectually. Many of them realized there were still reasons to be devout and spiritual, by worshiping various properties of Nature, especially human Nature, especially Mind. The lack of gods in no way detracts from the incredible beauty of the world, or the incredible perceptiveness of those who understand it, or the incredible joy we can take in being. Only, somewhere along this route, they came to realize that not all peoples shared these traits equally. In fact, historically speaking, only whites can be said to have participated in anything matching our ideals. Everything we assumed was divine about Man was really only divine about White man. The other races were either utterly incompetent, even criminally primitive, or else enigmatically incomplete and listlessly stuck in mediocrity despite all their seeming natural advantages and high civilizations.

Combine this with the knowledge that whites, as a race, are dying out and non-whites are conquering all former white territory through unmitigated mass immigration and higher non-white fertility, and you suddenly realize that though there might have been a reason to live without God, there soon won't be anymore, because everything of value is about to disappear again, like it had never been, leaving no trace or stamp of its goodness on the races inheriting our future. Mix and stir, bake in the oven for five minutes, and you'll have a white nationalist.

Then there is the second kind of white nationalist. This one also realizes white genetic superiority, but he isn't interested in our art or family ties. This white thinks of everything in terms of power, prospects, ruthless evolutionary struggle. Providing health care to poor people is wrong because it will cost whites and benefit blacks. Crime is bad because it could affect me. Lower taxes would improve my material situation but non-whites keep voting for higher taxes. Non-whites won't rule properly as judges or jury members when something is taken to court, they'll just favor their own. I might not get into the college of my choice because of these blasted non-whites. This group of people are ruthless bean counters. What they see in any situation is 'how does this benefit me and mine?' They will keep advocating change until they feel like every law and in fact, every single citizen of the nation is designed specifically to improve their material advantage.

I think it's easy for liberals to pick apart the arguments of the 2nd type of white nationalist. This is because they have no arguments that would appeal to others, or be persuasive to anyone else. Why should a society work to the benefit of X individual? An individual proclaims that low taxes, less crime, and a college of their choice would benefit them greatly. So what? How much would it cost others to give you that cushy existence? How many victims lie along that path? Why should we be concerned with the well being of the relatively well off when there are still groups of people suffering far more than you? Liberals will get to servicing your whiny wishes just as soon as they solve world hunger, world peace, all diseases, and smoking. Until then shut up and wait in line.

Whites can never win a non-spiritual argument. There are many reasons for this. One -- it's clear now that materially speaking, non-whites can compete quite evenly with whites. There are plenty of competent and effective Asians, sub-cons, jews, hispanics, southeast asians, etc who could replace us in all material fields. Billions of them. In terms of material suffering, whites again can't compete. We will never be worse off than blacks, Indians, or Afghans. There is no material rubric, whether from being 'richest' or 'poorest,' whites could single themselves out with. Whining about the fate of whites even in South Africa is meaningless when you consider the fate of black south africans who are even worse off sitting right next to them. Why pay any special attention to the white victims? Isn't pain pain? A human's pain is no more significant than an animal's pain, it's the same exact thing.

Materialists try to get around these objections. One attempt is to claim that the world will come to a crashing end if it doesn't specifically serve their agenda. Hence we get the hysterical claims that a non-libertarian state will end in financial ruin, a complete collapse where '90% of the world's wealth will vanish.' There are constant comparisons to the Soviet Union, which ignores the fact that citizens of the Soviet Union still had a material cushy life relative to the majority of Earth's inhabitants. Then there are vague promises about a future where all law and order has vanished and there is mass starvation in the streets because granny's social security could only be paid 75% of the way with current tax receipts.

This is really tiresome. For one, they're lying. Second, they are wishing, desiring world catastrophes just to suit their petty material individual advantage. If you don't serve me and my goals, the whole world will be destroyed, and it will serve you right. How childish is this? These people should be hoping, praying that the world lives on happily and fully despite any harm it did to them. There are billions of souls on this earth and they all shed tears when something goes wrong. How dare you salivate over collapses and wars of the future that will somehow bring you to power? (as though it ever would. . .)

What we see here is the antithesis of liberal circular logic. Libertarian circular logic. "We know for a fact that all non-libertarian states collapse into financial ruin and lawlessness." "Because of this fact, we are strongly opposed to any non-libertarian state."

Even though libertarians have been predicting economic collapse and ruin for 50 years, starting with Ayn Rand and followed by practically all other libertarian politicians/economists, the world hasn't collapsed anywhere. In fact, for the last 50 years the economy kept growing in complete defiance to all their predictions. Like vultures the libertarians jump on every recession and sing their harpy songs about how this time 'it's for real' and 'it's the end of the line, nothing can save us now.' However, each time the world economy recovers, ignores them, and moves on. Libertarians are left, like Christians, to go back and find in their bibles why Armageddon wasn't in the year 2,000, but actually is slated for 2012, make that 2033, etc. They cannot imagine that libertarianism is wrong, they refuse to check their initial premises, and therefore all their subsequent logic is demented and faith-based.

It is better that the world be destroyed than they have to question their faith in libertarian economics. After all, in one case the world just loses 90% of its population, but in the other case they'd be wrong.

Not for nothing is this group the champion of selfishness and greed.

Linear logic looks at the world how it is, and does not assume that there is some wildly distorting force that is causing it to be this way. Circular logic always falls into this trap. "We see how the world is, and how our theories predict it ought to be. We see that there is a vast difference between the two, therefore there must be a vast, shadowy, distorting force that is preventing our predictions from being correct. If we could just eliminate this distortion, reality would revert back to our predictions and everything would work as planned."

For the communists, this vast distorting force was 'kulaks.' If only they were liquidated communism would work. For libertarians, the vast distorting force is the "Fed." If only bankers would stop distorting the system through their loans and bailouts, the world's economy would properly crash and we could finally all become proper libertarians who have learned our lesson. For liberals, the vast distorting shadowy force is 'racism' and 'hate.' These phantom racists and haters are using phantom discrimination to create inequality where there should be none. Stamp out racism and hate forever, and reality would revert back to the model and all races would perform equally well in all rubrics and would have a perfect proportional demographic presence in all fields. For astronomers, the vast shadowy distorting force is even labeled as such, "dark energy." Reality is like this, but our models only predict that, I guess there must be a dark shadowy distortion that is keeping reality from matching our models. There's been no attempt to change our models to match reality, it's better to just add in additional dark matters and dark energies until the equation is finally balanced, with the known universe only composing 1% of reality.

Odds are, there are no vast, shadowy, distorting forces. Odds are, the original model is wrong. Odds are, what you see is what you get. Odds are, reality isn't at fault. And odds are, there is nothing and no one you could stamp out that would make a farthing's worth of difference to humanity's eventual future. Circular logic is self-defeating because it represents a kind of intellectual surrender. Instead of changing your mind, circular logic always tries to change the world. Then you realize you Can't change the world, walk off in a huff, and declare the world not good enough to be graced by your model's presence. Like a circle, those who live by said logic never get anywhere. Like the Oruboros, it only devours itself in a cycle of anger and despair. There are better ways of thinking.