Without Souls, Why Not Be Nazis?

If people have souls, then people are all infinitely valuable. Every single person who was ever conceived has infinite value on the ultimate plane of being. (Or if “infinite” sounds too close to calling people God, let us say that all people are “incalculably” valuable.)

But if people have no souls, then the only value people have is operational, functional, and pragmatic. This is why Leftists insist on radical equality so vehemently. Men and women must be equally good at all functions in life, because if men were better than women at certain things, this would imply that men were more valuable than women and therefore had the right to dominate women unfairly, to rape them and to beat them. So we must never notice that men make better soldiers, better entrepreneurs and better political leaders than do women. Because to do so would logically imply condoning rape.

Blacks and whites must be equal at all functions in life, because if whites were better than blacks at some things, then whites would be right to enslave blacks and kill them at will. So we must never notice that whites are on average smarter, less prone to murder, and better at building quiet, well-functioning communities. Because to do so would imply condoning genocide.

And on and on.

Leftists intuit (with their God-given consciences, with which they were imbued despite themselves), that to rape a woman or enslave a black person is inherently wrong. But why is it wrong? Not because God gave us souls, not because God loves all of us and wants all of us to be happy. No, it is wrong because we are all equal, at all tasks, at all times.

Therefore to give in to the notion of inequality is to condone rape, murder and other horrors.

But to those who know that all human souls are precious, it doesn’t matter that someone is less intelligent or has less muscle mass. That “lesser” person is still worthy of respect and still deserves freedom of the soul. To rape or murder someone because of “inferiority” on the material plane is anathema.

Leftists are constantly tossing charges of “fascist” or “Nazi” at people on the Right because that’s exactly what they would become if they no longer believed in radical equality. To a person with no belief in the soul, Nazism (or some equivalent) is the natural response to inequality. It’s the logical response.

Nine times out of ten when these topics come up, I keep my mouth shut because most people aren’t interested in reasoned argument, but only interested in shouting down the “bad guys.” But occasionally I find myself in a calm and loving discussion with someone I trust and who is willing to listen to me. I always explain it’s ok that blacks don’t score as high on school tests as whites do, because to me the value of the black person is not tied up in his performance on a school test. Just because a particular black person (or a particular white person, or whoever) isn’t very smart does not mean that he is therefore worthy of contempt and violence. It’s Okay. He’s valuable because he is a person, and he has a soul. I’ve found this line of reasoning, while certainly not foolproof, often gives pause. The implication is that the interlocutor is saying that it’s not Okay if the black person isn’t very smart. The tables are neatly flipped.

[Again, this argument usually doesn’t work because people usually aren’t willing to listen. But when people are honest and considerate, I find it can work.]

***

The funny thing is, there are also many things that women are much better at than men, and many things that black people are better at than white people. (I’m limiting the argument to these two major dichotomies of black/white and man/woman for simplicity’s sake. But of course there are countless variations on inequality … we could talk about Native Americans, or Asians, or Jews, or young versus old, or short versus tall…)

Because this society (the West), for all its recent changes and revolutions, is still basically the society built by white men, the things we tend to view as good on the mundane level are the things that white men are good at: Business, Organization, Science, Technology, etc. So when women or blacks (or whoever) fail to act like white men, Leftists see it as a failure to be good, to be valuable. So, according to their own materialistic, utilitarian views, “something must be done.”

So women are encouraged to behave like men, and it’s a tragedy when they don’t achieve as much manliness as men naturally do. And when blacks don’t turn out to make good law students or good physicists, it’s got to be because of some massive racist conspiracy. Women must be men. Blacks must be white.

Really, the Leftists are the sexist ones. The Leftists are the racists.

***

I’m glad I live in a world created by white men. I wouldn’t want to live in Africa or in a matriarchal society. But I also have a lot of admiration for great black musicians and great black athletes. Athletics are noble! There’s nothing wrong with being a beautiful athlete. It’s a form of human excellence. (I do think that commercialized sports are pretty heinous, but I don’t think it’s particularly worse in sports than it is in other forms of entertainment like crappy books and horrible movies … that is, the heinous part is the commercialization, not the black achievements.)

I have admiration for women. No man can ever be a mother, and a mother is the greatest thing a person can be, I believe. (Other than a saint, perhaps? But then many mothers are saint-like, are they not?)

Etc.

***

But if all that matters is utility, and if utility is measured in how smart you are, how much money you make, how swift your tank divisions are, and how good your career is, then white men will naturally come out on top, on average. So we must insist that a black woman make as good a tank division commander as does a white man. Because the only other option is unthinkable…

 People — all people — have utility and souls. The skills of white men (or any other group) are valuable. But they are not the reason the people in that group are good and valuable. Slam-dunking and inventing iPads are both nice things, but they aren’t what humans were created to do. Value and worth ultimately come from God.

But for someone caught up in hating God, this is an unthinkable proposition. And so, the lies and the hate must continue…. at all costs.

Advertisements

8 comments on “Without Souls, Why Not Be Nazis?

  1. zhai2nan2 says:

    Note that some Nazis considered themselves to be neo-Pagans, and neo-Pagans must believe in the soul, so if one does not believe in the soul, one cannot be a Nazi of the neo-Pagan variety.

  2. laceagate says:

    Sometimes I wonder if there is some deep, latent, and even mysterious fear knowing that we are not all “equal.” I have learned that we all have our roles to take and having souls gives us qualities to undertake those roles.

  3. Bob says:

    This still leaves the question: can it be said that some races are more moral than others, and therefore better?

    If black people are more likely to commit crime against their fellow human beings, isn’t this a worse indictment than simply being low-IQ?

    On the other hand, it could be said that the higher-IQ white societies simply allow for the use of technology to perpetrate evil on a mass scale. The same low-crime, polite and conscientious white societies that seem so attractive on a personal level are the same societies responsible for mass abortion, the horrors of two world wars, the Soviet Gulag, the atomic bomb, and biological weaponry that will no doubt be unleashed upon mankind in the future. Black societies could never have been responsible for such things. Murder, theft, rape, and cruelty within a neighborhood is really no comparison to the liquidation of millions via the wonders of technology and bureaucracy.

    So maybe the immorality of black society is obvious on personal day-to-day level, but the immorality of white society is ultimately greater. The white race is more powerful, that’s all. And power allows for greater opportunity for good, and greater opportunity for evil.

  4. Midnight Rider says:

    This is very good, Daniel.

    I think you have a gift in presenting difficult truths (difficult in the sense that modern life in the West is a web of deceit) in a way that is reflective and, well, calm. I find myself often having a heightened serenity after reading one of your posts, which I must admit is not all that common when I read online.

    I hope you keep at it.

  5. imnobody says:

    This is genius but I think that there is something additional. You are dealing with the psychological (internal) aspect but there is also a social (external) aspect.

    The fundamental dogma of our current religion (the Enlightenment) is that all people are equal (“all men are created equal”, do you remember that?). The whole philosophy, politics, economics and life of the modern world are based on that false premise. If you admit that it is false, everything collapses. So leftist people have to fool themselves and fool others, even if, deep down, they know it’s not true.

    For example, if you think that some people are better than others to rule the country, the result is a meritocracy, not a democracy. Democracy produces incompetent people (like Sarah Palin or Obama) voted by incompetent voters because of silly reasons (she is cute or he speaks well).

    The way this system has lasted against all evidence is to idolize equality and its consequences (democracy, free market, choice, unrestricted freedom, etc). So even discussing the goodness of these things is taboo and makes you a bad person, similar to nazis or the KKK. This way reality is hidden and dissonance is avoided. Which is what you were explaining. So, in my opinion, the internal aspect is a consequence of the external aspect.

  6. Wm Jas says:

    I don’t think this is a fair characterization of how Leftists really think. Young children and mentally retarded people are obviously not as good at most things as most other people are, but no Leftist is going to conclude from that that it’s okay to rape and murder them. (We deprive them of equal rights, yes — they may not be allowed to drive cars or vote or enter into contracts, for example — but no normal person considers them to have no human value or to be fair game for rape, murder, and other cruel treatment.) Maybe you think Leftists should logically think that way, but it’s not how they do in fact think.

    • outofsleep says:

      “Maybe you think Leftists should logically think that way, but it’s not how they do in fact think.”

      Leftism is always — in fact must be — inconsistently applied in order for a society to maintain anything like normalcy and functionality. This is Lawrence Auster’s key idea of the Unprincipled Exception.

      “Young children and mentally retarded people are obviously not as good at most things as most other people are, but no Leftist is going to conclude from that that it’s okay to rape and murder them.”

      Not yet. Once it was considered anathema to commit mass abortions, now it is de rigeur. And in fact people routinely abort babies specifically because they are mentally retarded. So in fact, killing someone because he is mentally retarded and a child is already perfectly acceptable. I guess people still intuit that to rape the mentally retarded child before finishing it off would be going just a *bit* too far.

      There are plenty of inconsistencies in how Leftism is instituted. In fact, it is this inconsistency that allow life to remain tolerable. A thoroughly, logically, consistently Leftist society cannot exist, because it will collapse in on itself.

      • Erik says:

        And the leftist vanguard does seem to think that way.

        The Journal of Medical Ethics published a paper the other day arguing for “after-birth abortion” on the grounds that sufficiently young children aren’t people “in a morally relevant sense”.
        http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2012/03/01/medethics-2011-100411.full
        “First, we do not put forward any claim about the moment at which after-birth abortion would no longer be permissible, and we do not think that in fact more than a few days would be necessary for doctors to detect any abnormality in the child. In cases where the after-birth abortion were requested for non-medical reasons, we do not suggest any threshold, as it depends on the neurological development of newborns, which is something neurologists and psychologists would be able to assess.”

        In defense, the editor wrote:
        http://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2012/02/28/liberals-are-disgusting-in-defence-of-the-publication-of-after-birth-abortion/
        “More than ever, proper academic discussion and freedom are under threat from fanatics opposed to the very values of a liberal society.”
        “What the response to this article reveals, through the microscope of the web, is the deep disorder of the modern world. Not that people would give arguments in favour of infanticide, but the deep opposition that exists now to liberal values and fanatical opposition to any kind of reasoned engagement.”

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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