Libertarian National Socialist Green Party

Judgment

The idea of racial separation, in public or among friends, triggers a predictable response: "I prefer to judge people individually" and the shocked "How can you judge them as a group?" The answer is simple, for those with a mindset toward complexity: racial separation is actually less judgmental, in the least part because you are not judging either group or individual.

Judgment, in the term used here, applies to religious judgment, by which groups and people are graded on an absolute scale from "good" to "bad." The girl you see as a slut might be an abused child; the guy who sniffs glue and steals cars might be heartbroken over a girl; the bitter old man might have had his car stolen. In place of judgment, the Indo-European traditional vir makes a stronger statement, that of choice: "I prefer to be with these people who are my friends," which by the nature of a world as whole, means those who are not selected as preferred are excluded.

Each ethnic-cultural group is by thousands of generations of breeding separated in inclination from other groups; much as identical twins on either side of a continent behave similarly, and we have mannerisms and tendencies innately that originate in our parents, so do tribes and races have inclinations. They like certain things and not others, and need a society to match. When you mix them all up and create a standard, or average, to apply to all of them, it is injustice to every individual. They are being judged by an artificial, abstract, quantitative human construct.

Placing us all under the same average and thus on the same linear scale is the cruelest form of judgment, as it forces us to evaluate others in terms of absolutes. There is under this system one range of acceptable behaviors, one way to approve or disprove of people, and one implied world culture by which we assess them all. Under this view of the world, you cannot see someone and think, "They are what they are," but you must view them in terms of whether or not you approve of them. Superior, inferior. Good, better, best. There is one linear scale from nothing to infinity, just like our numbers.

As those who read this column know, I do not like bigotry; it hurts the spirit of the bigot more than anything else, because it is a depressive and violent view of the world. To be a bigot means you assume there is an absolute evil, and as long as it exists, you have no victory. You see only a single line of approval, and yourself at some point on that line, meaning you have to measure yourself by a number just as you do to everyone else. This is perfect for machines, and bureaucrats, but it crushes the human soul.

However, "multiculturalism" is just as bigoted, because it assumes that if there's some area with, say, only ethnic Swedes, that area isn't "diverse" and therefore needs fixing. Tikkun Olam: repairing the world, even though it doesn't need repairing; that's bigotry against nature and against reality. Similarly, seeing the world in terms of good and evil is sorting it into a single form of value, and denies the diversity of value in life itself. You can't allow punkers to be punkers, and churchmen, churchmen; you've got to apply some kind of rank to each one, and those that fall below the line of approval are bad.

So when I see these responses to racial separation, I realize that they come from people who can't think their way out of this linear measurement, and being unwilling to draw a line of approval somewhere, have opted to approve everything in the idea that it is "better" to do this. I say dispense with good and evil entirely, and realize that mixing races is a recent phenomenon that has occurred only because of the impetus of commerce, religion and social pressures. It has nothing to do with nature, and presupposes that nature is "bad," thus multiculturalism - the anti-nature - is good.

The same attitude is in place with nature. People see only submission, or domination, because they are fixed in a linear state of mind, with one reality and one standard for it. Diversity in my mind means accepting that nature may be different, and our order and its order might not mesh, so we leave the forest to its own rule and keep our houses ordered according to human needs. The forest has predators, and disease, and horrors in addition to great beauty, and we might be afraid of these, but it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to banish the forest to establish spaces where these are so.

Similarly, I don't see a need to degrade or praise one race over another; I think this interpretation of racial separation is a recent one that dates back to the introduction of moral judgment to Europe. The ancients did not judge; they acted heroically, as one must. The moderns judge, and exclude what they fear, and therefore cannot make a simple statement like "I prefer to live among my own kind," but must denigrate the African race or the Jewish race and so forth. The other side of this detests any pure ethnic population, and wishes to obliterate it much as we cut down the forests and plough open fields: it wants to make one order of the average out of a previously diverse world.

For this reason, racism is less judgmental than anti-racism, because it allows us to keep our own culture without having to judge others as "bad" or "good." Actually, one way to see this is that in order to understand racism, one has to leave aside morality. Morality is grounded in the fear of death, and because of this, people make death the central concept in life: from fear of death, they make the world all that they see; "the world is my representation" becomes true in a sick way, in that all they see is preserving their own mortality, and thus they're blind to life as a whole. This is anti-nature, and it's the root of both bigotry and judgmental anti-racism.

When we look at the effects of this, both in terms of race and beyond it, it becomes clear that what must be addressed is more basic than politics; we have to look closely at judgment, and the solipsistic world it implies, in order to transcend the errors of politics and realize the world does not need to fit one bureaucratic, numeric, quantitative path. It is far more complex than a number line, or a yes/no answer. This idea applies to many more things that racism, and I commend it to all of you as a way of not only escaping bad philosophy, but learning anew how to appreciate and love your world.