To the US bishops on “racism”; a plea for clarity

I missed the spat in the comments with Slumlord and his usual insults toward social conservatives; it was a very busy week for me.  I’m going to be completely unfair and take inspiration from the most recent comment (then maybe work my way back).  Aegis asks what I think of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops’ 1979 Pastoral Letter on Racism.  This ties in nicely with some other things I’ve been thinking about.

First, the letter itself.  Let’s start here:

The continuing existence of racism becomes apparent, however, when we look beneath the surface of our national life: as, for example, in the case of unemployment figures…

We strongly urge that special attention be directed to the plight of undocumented workers and that every effort be made to remove the fear and prejudice of which they are victims.

Surely there aren’t any connections they’re not seeing here?

Racism is apparent when we note that the population is our prisons consists disproportionately of minorities; that violent crime is the daily companion of a life of poverty and deprivation; and that the victims of such crimes are also disproportionately nonwhite and poor.

So, should we let them prey on each other, or shouldn’t we?

Racism is the sin that says some human beings are inherently superior and others essentially inferior because of races. It is the sin that makes racial characteristics the determining factor for the exercise of human rights…

Finally, racism is sometimes apparent in the growing sentiment that too much is being given to racial minorities by way of affirmative action programs or allocations to redress long-standing imbalances in minority representation and government-funded programs for the disadvantaged. At times, protestations claiming that all persons should be treated equally reflect the desire to maintain a status quo that favors one race and social group at the expense of the poor and the nonwhite.

That’s right. They say it’s a sin to criticize affirmative action.

Perhaps the biggest embarrassment is that none of the included bible or papal quotes has anything to do with the matter at hand.  Or maybe calling UN documents the voice of God was the most embarrassing thing.  Actually, it’s hard to decide what is worst in this disgraceful document.  From the point of view of conversations here, the biggest problem is the fail to define their terms, especially “racism” itself.

Anyway, what I’ve been thinking is that Leftist rules wouldn’t be so bad if they were made formal and explicit.  Just a few days ago, Henry Dampier made the same point about the unofficial requirement of Leftist orthodoxy in a number of professions.

In some ways, we should encourage the left begin to begin mandating Party membership for certain industries, in the same way that certain parties have done in many other times throughout history. This is a formalized way of cleansing dissenters from institutions — it’s transparent and orderly — rather than relying on soft and poorly-legible methods of terrorizing people.

Or a long time back, I made a comment at Sunshine Mary’s blog to the effect that conservatives in academia would be better off if there were more explicit speech codes, with a complete list of propositions that may not be held or may not be questioned.  The university would be a freer place, because everyone could know exactly what cannot be said and so could feel completely safe exploring any topic that they didn’t think to put on the list.

The Catholic Church’s condemnation of racism is clearly driven by anti-white animus.  Negro and Latino separatist or supremacist organizations are never criticized.  I would prefer that this be made explicit.  That is, if I had any influence in the Church, I would like a paragraph added:

None of the above should be taken to deny that nonwhites may exercise a legitimate affective preference for their own distinctive peoples and cultures.  Such local loyalties and piety toward distinctive lineages when found among nonwhites should in no sense be construed as a denial of the dignity of all human beings.  Furthermore, it is not wrong for nonwhite peoples to desire the continued existence of their peoples and to safeguard the integrity of their cultures through the maintenance of organizations and neighborhoods exclusive to themselves.

My main reason for wanting this is not to expose the hypocrisy behind the bishops’ hateful document.  The Church’s antiracist witness is intended as a weapon against whites; and I would like to make sure it doesn’t end up claiming any other victims.

The world in 2079 will be much different from the world in 1979.  Whites will be a fairly powerless minority at that time.  There will still be enough whites to serve as a plausible scapegoat, but it should not be imagined that a common hatred of whites will be enough to ensure peace among the new rulers of the West.  The Democratic-voting block has been called “the coalition of the fringes” to draw attention to its heterogeneity.  (I prefer “coalition of the powerful” against the “coalition of the scapegoats”.  The first because the upper levels of any profession seem to be liberal-controlled.  The second because conservatives are always playing the ugly contest against each other to try to crawl out of the scapegoat class.)  Presumably, white-dominance will be replaced by a formal racial caste system, as each group unambiguously establishes its rank in the hierarchy of victims.  Some people expect the coalition to crack up over placement in the hierarchy, but I’m convinced this is a mistake.  First of all, only the current state, in which the hierarchy is unclear and several groups have comparable status, is unstable.  The natural progression is for nearly equal status groups to compete until one trounces the other (as, for example, transexuals have recently done to lesbians) and establishes a wide, stable separation of status.  And during this process, there is no incentive to defect from the coalition of the fringes and join the scapegoats; that would just mean forfeiting one’s present status.  The incentive is always to double down on the victimization narrative.

Anyway, there is a danger that general condemnations of “racism” may be used by a higher caste group to demand not only the submission but the destruction of a mid or lower caste group, applying to them a category that was intended only for whites.  And the demand that any caste cease to be racist is inhuman.

Being a racist, my first concern is my own people, but I wish every other people well and would spare them calamity if it were in my power.  There would be something fitting in a white conservative arguing for an amendment to the bishops’ letter like the one I propose.  Of course, I would prefer that the right to particular loyalty be granted to everyone, but it would have no chance if the bishops thought it might apply to whites.  Besides, if we included our own protection, it might seem that were were only arguing our own case.  A non-white who wanted an amendment like mine might also come off as self-interested.  It would be undeniably grand, though, for a white racist, seeing his own people mortally stricken, to exert himself to ensuring no other peoples fall victim to antiracism’s vicious ideology.

28 Responses

  1. […] To the US bishops on “racism”; a plea for clarity […]

  2. “Racism is the sin that says some human beings are inherently superior and others essentially inferior because of races.”

    No, that’s called racial supremacy. This man is deceitful and wicked to deliberately conflate a love for ones own (a natural obligation) with the eugenic creed (a product of Modern profane science).

    I wish no other nation on earth ill, provided their society is not practicing demonic cultism or mass murder. And yet I wish separation between the nations in their ethnic makeup. Let white be white. Let yellow be yellow. Let black be black.

  3. Mark Citadel
    Such a plea for Balkanisation seems to me both inadvisable and unnecessary.
    Does anyone really believe that the partition of Belgium would produce two viable states? That a new state composed of Brittany and Wales would enhance the well-being of either? What of a Basque state, divided by the Pyrenees?
    Under your proposal, would a new, united Austrian-German state be entitled to annex the German-speaking areas of Belgium and Switzerland, even against the wishes of its inhabitants? Greece to annex part of Cyprus? Or France and the Netherlands the Walloon and Flemish areas of Belgium?
    By contrast, one only has to look at the growing success of large multiethnic states: Brazil, India, Russia, China. Perhaps, Joseph Chamberlain was right, when he said God was on the side of the big battalions.

  4. Actually, they did define racism. Racism is the sin that says some human beings are inherently superior and others essentially inferior because of races. This is a pretty good definition. The problem is that not one of the things they mentioned (or at least that are quoted here, I haven’t read the document myself) fits the definition by a long shot.

    Interesting idea regarding the future caste system. Sadly I don’t think it’ll go that way. Rather, I’m pretty sure they’ll just keep expanding the definition of white. So if you had a white great grandparent, you’ll be considered an oppressor.

    And the left in this country will never make things explicit. Keeping up a veneer of freedom for the right is practically essential to leftist success.

  5. @Michael – I draw a contrast between the terms ‘state’ and ‘nation’. My plea is for ethnic nations not to be compromised. Thus, I fall in line with Aleksandr Dugin’s views on the Imperium, when he addressed Hungarian nationalists desiring that the Hungarian nation be integrated into a Third Rome, in which it would retain a level of autonomy and exclusive ethnic rights to its own homeland. Working within this loose paradigm, one can support for instance, an ethnic segregation policy within states themselves and not necessarily be calling for all peoples to actually have their own state. In this way, the races are preserved.

  6. @Mark

    The problem still remains that having different peoples living in the same place tends to create discord. It would therefore be better for people living in a certain region to see themselves as the same people. Ethnicity will follow from this.

  7. Though of course, one can have different ethnicities in different regions of an empire.

  8. Reading that document actually makes me a bit optimistic. I’m 34 and have been a Catholic for less than 3 years, so I did not experience the full brunt of the triumph of liberalism on the Church. In some ways leftism is obviously still ascendant, but in other ways things are actually a lot better. Even my parish priest would never say anything as asinine as this. The power elite is no longer dangling the kind of social status to a common Bishop for joining the war on Catholics that they were when Rockefeller III and the population council were the top of the status hierarchy. People understand the Notre Dame is no longer Catholic so they don’t confuse its theology department with Church Dogma.

    Pope Francis is kind of a throwback in this sense.

  9. “one can have different ethnicities in different regions of an empire.” As was the case in all pre-Modern empires. There was no call to multiculturalism, more being with ones kin but part of a larger collective for regal and military purposes (perhaps economic as well). You are never going to have African Americans be just Americans. The racial boundary is just so wide, we are so different in the way we think and the societal structure geared towards our race that we cannot come together in a big kumbaya moment.

    One of the observations I have made about blacks is that while the decadent Modern age is corrosive to all races, blacks were really just not built for it. They need hard power structures (why they gravitate towards gang activity), in a sense their society needs violence but it has to be ordered and enshrined. Modernity is at once too mellow, too rich, too vapid for their nature. In the harsh landscape of Africa, they developed a gravitation to a certain kind of society.

    The utter failure of most African nations as functioning states as well as the failure of diaspora black communities is due to Modernity trying to map itself onto a people who are not, in essence, made for it. When any race tries to be Modern, you are going to end up with a distorted non-functioning entropic mess, but none moreso it seems than blacks.

  10. ArkansasReactionary wrote, “It would therefore be better for people living in a certain region to see themselves as the same people”

    Yet, in major Indian cities, one finds Sikhs, Jains, Parsees, Muslims and different Hindu castes living in distinct neighbourhoods, just as many cities in the Middle East have historic Jewish, Armenian and Greek quarters.

    In India, the system is reinforced by there being different legal régimes of family law and inheritance for the different groups – what jurists call the « Statut personnel » Of course, the system presupposes that community membership is stable. This is one reason why the government places obstacles in the way of convertion from one religion to another and criminalises proselytism; it can have profound consequences on third party personal and property rights within the family unit.

  11. Mark Citadel wrote, “There was no call to multiculturalism, more being with ones kin.”

    On the contrary, there was a very definite (and highly successful) policy of Romanization in the Roman Empire, beginning with Augustus and pursued by his successors. This was marked by the extension of Roman citizenship (and with it Roman law), first throughout Italy and later to all the free inhabitants of the empire.

    Despite the Frankish conquest, to this day France is thoroughly Roman in language, law and culture; especialy south of the Rhône, from Geneva in the east to the mouth of the Charante, where the Roman tradition of municiple life and government and the Written Law was never lost – « le pays de droit écrit »

    A similar policy of Hellenization under the successors of Alexander the Great was very effective, especially in Egypt and the Levant.

  12. One could add the germanisation of the slavs of Silesia, East Prussia and Bohemia – largely the work of the Teutonic Kinights; Old Prussian (a cognate of Lithuanian) died out in the 16th century, killed off, so it is said, by Luther’s German Bible.

  13. @Mark

    With regard to ancient empires, there’s Michael’s point that they dud try to extend the ruling culture to the others, and also, the different peoples in an empire historically lived in different places generally.


    Your point about religious minorities living in ghettos shows my point. They lived as separate people from those around them because they were regarded as not being fully members of their host society.

  14. ArkansasReactionary wrote, “They lived as separate people from those around them because they were regarded as not being fully members of their host society.”

    Such groups tended to enjoy the greatest degree of autonomy, when the rulers were themselves an ethnic minority. One thinks of many of the princely states of India, ruled by a small, usually Muslim, military aristocracy. The rulers’ first concern was to forestall or repress any inter-communal tensions between their diverse subjects.

    On a larger scale, one has the Turkish rule over Arabs, Persians, Azeris, Kurds, Circassians, Greeks, Bulgarians and a plethora of minorities in the Ottoman Empire. That empire collapsed, when national identity replaced religious identity as the most potent bond of unity. The Arab revolt against Turkish rule went hand in hand with a Turkish revolt against Arab cultural dominance, exemplified by the change of the adhan from Arabic to Turkish, the replacement of the Arabic with the Roman alphabet, of Sharia law with the Swiss Civil Code, the Italian Penal Code and the German Commercial Code and a wealth of other examples.

  15. @Michael – I distinguish between regal, military, economic, and in most cases legal structures, and then cultural practice which is typically very strongly connected to ethnicity. Multiculturalism in the Modern context carries a definite racial aspect. Romanization was very successful, but not to an extent that original essences of cultural difference were utterly destroyed (hence the creation of so many different states when it finally collapsed, demarcated from each other in quite distinct ways, taking account of course of people who changed their cultural affiliation and even perhaps ‘spiritual ethnicity’ if you accept Evola’s theory of race). The cultures in question had taken on adopted Roman aspects, and there are apparently four different theories about Romanization.

    “Non-Interventionist Model – Native elites were encouraged to increase social standing through association with the powerful conqueror be it in dress, language, housing and food consumption. This provides them with associated power. The establishment of a civil administration system is quickly imposed to solidify the permanence of Roman rule.

    Discrepant Identity – No uniformity of identity which we can accurately describe as traditional ‘Romanization’. Fundamental differences within a province are visible through economics, religion and identity. Not all provincials were pro-Rome, nor did all elites seek to be like the Roman upper classes.

    Acculturation – Aspects of both Native and Roman cultures are joined together. This can be seen in the Roman acceptance, and adoption of, non-Classical religious practices. The inclusion of Isis, Epona, Britannia and Dolychenus into the pantheon are evidence of this.

    Creolization – Romanization occurs as a result of negotiation between different elements of non-egalitarian societies. Material culture is therefore ambiguous.”

    I don’t really see these as comparable to the Modern sense of Multiculturalism which is almost Soviet in its tenacity, but with an added ultra-liberal self-flagellation aspect that despises Occidental peoples.

    As an aside: spreading of certain cultural ideas or practices to disparate cultures may happen even without the existence of an empire. A good example would be religious culture, such as the growth of Christianity in China that has come without any imperial influence.

    Your point is well-taken however. I’m not necessarily a Rome fetishist. A lot of things were wrong with Rome. Other empires avoided certain pitfalls of Rome.

  16. Mark Capital wrote, “A lot of things were wrong with Rome”
    Indeed there were, but the Romans had a remarkable ability to conquer other peoples. According to their own great grammarian Varro, “to conquer” means to give laws, that is, to impose one’s own manners and customs on the subject people. Few peoples have done so more successfully or more thoroughly than Rome.

    Thus, in the case of France, Lord Acton points out that “The Cæsarean system gave an unprecedented freedom to the dependencies, and raised them to a civil equality which put an end to the dominion of race over race and of class over class. The monarchy was hailed as a refuge from the pride and cupidity of the Roman people; and the love of equality, the hatred of nobility, and the tolerance of despotism implanted by Rome became, at least in Gaul, the chief feature of the national character.”

    Although long repressed by the Teutonic elements imposed by the Franks – hereditary nobility, primogeniture, and privilege ¬– these elements ultimately reasserted themselves in quite spectacular fashion. The Abbé Sieyès was not entirely wrong in seeing in the Revolution a Gallo-Roman revolt against their Frankish overlords.

    Of course, I agree that “spreading of certain cultural ideas or practices to disparate cultures may happen even without the existence of an empire.” The reception of Roman law in 19th century Japan and 20th century Turkey are obvious examples.

  17. I don’t say that I’m smarter than Shitavious (actual name, search it) because I’m White, but because I’m, er, smarter. And somewhere, I suppose, a thug named Taquan has an IQ higher than mine. But Whites are smarter and better than Negroes at everything except boxing and running, and taking legal notice of this doesn’t seem sinful to me, only reasonable, the same way we recognize that minors can’t enter into binding contracts and shouldn’t be allowed to buy liquor.
    I’m naive enough to have at one time respected the NCCB as a group of intellectual heavyweights. Ha!

  18. “Racism is apparent when we note that the population is our prisons consists disproportionately of minorities … ”

    I keep seeing this line or something like it pop up and am baffled by it. Is it being implied that those minorities are wrongfully imprisoned? What is the proposed solution here?

  19. Proph, it baffles you? Any disparate outcome (economic, educational, social, legal, etc.) is proof of racism. That’s contemporary left-liberalism 101.

  20. Aren’t we pretty much seeing right now that not enough “minorities” are in prison?

  21. I find documents like this one to be of a piece with larger forces which can be resisted but never defeated. “All men are equal” is the silent epitaph over many a mass grave. Even now, its logic is working itself out. America is a universal blank into which millions upon millions have settled, only for their histories and identities to merge into its landscape, whether as skyscrapers or tombstones. All that remains is the force of will imparted to the monstrous whole. So, these United States stagger onward, from one oblivion to the next, following the path of vainglory and error, until our founding words meet us again in eternal silence: All men are equal and here they sleep, unknown in dust and ashes.

  22. I understand that much, Bruce. It’s just that the line is obviously such patent BS that I have a hard time imagining anyone actually believes it, or at least believes what a casual reading of it would seem to imply.

  23. Proph, I don’t think their argument would be that it’s all wrongful imprisonment. They would say society is fundamentally racist and unjust (“structural” or “institutional” racism or whatever academic-sounding phrase they use this week) and that’s why so many are locked up. Even when you prove they’re wrong, they retreat to the position that there’s been vast sociological damage done to NAMs by previous generations so there’s still the lingering effects of racism.

  24. […] yes, as a matter of fact it is possible to be more Catholic than the Pope, and Bonald is it. Also To the US bishops (of 1979) on “racism”; a plea for clarity. My, my the USCCB was awfully progressive. I wonder where they got those ideas? And an extended […]

  25. […] plead once again to the princes of the Church to qualify these statements.  In your blinding hatred for white […]

  26. […] am pleased at least that Catholic leaders are following my advice of qualifying their anti-cultural statements so they don’t generalize their genocidal hatred […]

  27. […] Pius XII’s insane “right” to immigration and the American bishops’ insane condemnation of “racism”.  We may well see a papal condemnation of the Alternative Right, worded so broadly as to impugn […]

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: