Utilitarianism + White supremacy = genocide

Well actually, utilitarianism + pretty much anything = genocide.  But let’s talk about White supremacy.

Here’s a progressive syllogism.

  1. utilitarianism + White supremacy = genocide
  2. if White supremacy, then genocide
  3. not White supremacy

QED.  Not only is White supremacy false, but anyone examining it is toying with justifying genocide.

What I would like to do is replace it with a neoreactionary syllogism:

  1. utilitarianism + anything = genocide
  2. stuff
  3. not utilitarianism

Because really, White supremacy is an obvious fact of the world, as noted most poignantly by progressives: what is White privilege but the near-universal acknowledgement of White supremacy?

Atheists should also recognize utilitarianism as heresy

Utilitarianism is the belief that there exists some function that we are here to maximize – the glory of God?  No, human happiness.  And what profits the utilitarian to replace God with a function that God only knows how to calculate?

It is profitable because the utilitarian can then claim to have partially computed the function, which the Christian immediately translates into a claim to know the mind of God, and rejects as heresy.  The atheist should also take exception with such a claim.  Rather than unquestioningly accept an idolatry dressed up in sciency cant, the atheist should reply, how comes this?

Utilitarians can’t themselves personally see anything wrong with Jeremy Bentham’s mummified corpse on display at University College.  So they do it.  They also bind books in human leather, declare a new religion of humanity, guillotine everyone they can get their hands on, shoot everyone wearing glasses, and so on.

Shooting everyone wearing glasses

The real danger of utilitarianism is the shooting everyone wearing glasses.  Why do utilitarians do this kind of thing?  It’s quite simple.  Human happiness will be maximized if we destroy the bourgeoisie, and it is morally necessary to maximize human happiness as quickly as possible.

The argument for genocide is even easier.  Whites are more important than Persons of Color.  Persons of Color consume resources that would be better used for Whites.  Ergo, it is morally necessary to genocide the Persons of Color as quickly as possible.

It doesn’t matter if the gas chambers that killed six million Jews ever existed; White supremacists obviously want to create them, because utilitarianism + White supremacy = genocide.

But then again, utilitarianism + class warfare = auto-genocide.  Just as Cambodia or Sichuan Province –

Heaven brings forth innumerable things to nurture man

Man has nothing good with which to recompense Heaven

Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill. Kill.

I think I prefer the updated, Haiku version of Zhang’s charming poem – “Earth nurtures humans / humans can not recompense / kill kill kill kill kill”.

Elliot Rodger

Elliot Rodger was many things – a communist and a feminist, to be sure.  He was also a White supremacist.  According to his diary / manifesto, when he was 9, “I had to adapt.  My first act was to ask my parents to allow me to bleach my hair blonde.  I always envied and admired blonde-haired people, they always seemed so much more beautiful.”  Of course, he wasn’t only a White supremacist.  Before then, “I desperately wanted to get taller, and I read that playing basketball increases height.  This parked my brief interest in basketball… and also I remember lying on the ground in the basketball court trying to stretch my body as much as I could in between basketball sessions”.

Sorry, Elliot, you can’t be White, and you can’t be taller.

We all work to glorify the same God

The Weather Underground asked the question, “Is it the duty of any good revolutionary to kill any newborn White baby?”

Elliot Rodger replies with question, “Is it the duty of any good Person of Color to kill themself?”

If Elliot Rodger had actually channeled his envy into a desire to destroy the White race, he could have taken a political science major and then gone to work on, as Noel Ignatiev said, the deconstruction of the White race, for the one of the many NGOs working on promoting White guilt or refugee resettlement or something.  Instead, he made a purely symbolic attack and then killed himself.  I can almost admire his honesty.

My answer to their questions is the same.  Duty?  Duty to whom?

Duty to the utility function?  This is odious idolatry.

Duty to their own craven envy?  This is also odious idolatry.

Duty to God?  Absolutely not.

I believe that a human life has this intrinsic value: that each human life is an opportunity to glorify God.  Every human life has this value, from the noblest of kings, to the basest of villeins.  Satan refused to bow to Adam, and went to Hell.  Elliot Rodger refused to live as a Person of Color, and killed himself.

I’m not particularly tall, or blond, or sociable either.  The sad thing is, he couldn’t get a girl in his BMW.  In particular, though, he hated himself for not being White.  Does Batman hate himself for not being a Kryptonian?  Jesus Christ is the only perfect man.

White genocide and non-White genocide

The DailyStormer crowd would like to point out that, had a White man given explicitly racial reasons for killing Persons of Color, we would never hear the end of it.  They are right, of course, that to answer that question would be embarrassing to people with as complicated a relationship with White supremacy as progressives.  Elliot hated Whites out of envy of White supremacy; the putative White murderer of Persons of Color is motivated by wrath towards the inferior, and everyone knows that oppressing the weak is a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

White genocide is not implied by utilitarianism from White supremacy – quite the opposite.  Instead, utilitarians must studiously ignore and suppress all evidence for White supremacy, which leads to what Bob Whitaker’s group calls White genocide.

Because despite their utilitarianism, they are unable to convince themselves that genocide is okay.  They can convince themselves that books bound in human leather are cool, or that terror, confiscation, and murder on a theoretically small but ever-increasing scale are okay, but they still have an ineradicable conscience squeaking in the back of their minds – after all, utilitarians are human.

Not only is utilitarianism ridiculous heresy, but utilitarians are unwilling to face its full consequences.

Some quotes

I do not think it likely to be denied… that the keen interest which the community takes in looking on, as a body of spectators, at the various activities of popular government, is the chief reason of the general impression that ours is an Age of Progress, to be indefinitely continued. There are, however, other causes of this impression or belief, which are much less obvious and much less easily demonstrated to the ordinary English politician.
At the head of them, are a group of words, phrases, maxims, and general propositions, which have their root in political theories, not indeed far removed from us by distance of time, but as much forgotten by the mass of mankind as if they had belonged to the remotest antiquity.
How is one to convince the advanced English politician who announces with an air of pride that he is Radical, and indeed a Radical and something more, that he is calling himself by a name which he would never have had the courage to adopt, so deep was its disrepute, if Jeremy Bentham had not given it respectability by associating it with a particular theory of legislation and politics?
How is one to persuade him, when he speaks of the Sovereign People, that he employs a combination of words which would never have occurred to his mind if in 1762 a French philosopher had not written a speculative essay on the origin of society, the formation of States, and the nature of government?
Neither of these theories, the theory of Rousseau which starts from the assumed Natural Rights of Man, or the theory of Bentham which is based on the hypothetical Greatest Happiness principle, is now-a-days explicitly held by many people.
The natural rights of man have indeed made their appearance in recent political discourse… but, of the two theories mentioned above, that of Rousseau which recognises these rights is much the most thoroughly forgotten. For the attempt to apply it led to terrible calamities, while the theory of Bentham has at present led to nothing worse than a certain amount of disappointment. How is it then that these wholly or partially exploded speculations still exercise a most real and practical influence on political thought?
The fact is that political theories are endowed with the faculty possessed by the hero of the Border-ballad. When their legs are smitten off they fight upon their stumps. They produce a host of words, and of ideas associated with those words, which remain active and combatant after the parent speculation is mutilated or dead. Their posthumous influence often extends a good way beyond the domain of politics.

— Sir Henry Maine, Popular Government

By now, that theory of Bentham’s has become everyone’s default assumption, so thoroughly that only a major geek is even aware that any other theory exists.  The consequence of the heresy to claim to know the mind of God is some of the worst evil the world has ever seen.

and Carlyle on capital punishment:

Other ground on which to deliberately slay a disarmed fellow-man I can see none. Example, effects upon the public mind, effects upon this and upon that: all this is mere appendage and accident; of all this I make no attempt to keep account,—sensible that no arithmetic will or can keep account of it; that its “effects,” on this hand and on that, transcend all calculation. One thing, if I can calculate it, will include all, and produce beneficial effects beyond calculation, and no ill effect at all, anywhere or at any time: What the Law of the Universe, or Law of God, is with regard to this caitiff? That, by all sacred research and consideration, I will try to find out; to that I will come as near as human means admit; that shall be my exemplar and “example;” all men shall through me see that, and be profited beyond calculation by seeing it.

 

What this Law of the Universe, or Law made by God, is? Men at one time read it in their Bible. In many Bibles, Books, and authentic symbols and monitions of Nature and the World (of Fact, that is, and of Human Speech, or Wise Interpretation of Fact), there are still clear indications towards it. Most important it is, for this and for some other reasons, that men do, in some way, get to see it a little! And if no man could now see it by any Bible, there is written in the heart of every man an authentic copy of it direct from Heaven itself: there, if he have learnt to decipher Heaven’s writing, and can read the sacred oracles (a sad case for him if he altogether cannot), every born man may still find some copy of it.

It is right that many of today’s first-world governments don’t practice capital punishment.  After all, it is totally indefensible on utilitarian grounds.  One would hope that utilitarians would realize that nothing can be defended or rejected on utilitarian grounds, because the mind of God is unknowable, but, heretics gotta blaspheme.

Any progressives reading this?

Take a red pill; be a redpilled progressive, which is to say, a neoreactionary.  What does utilitarianism do for you?  Does it justify anything you actually want to do anyway?  Do you still need a consequentialist philosophy to feel good?  Then be a consequentialist, for Heaven’s sake – you don’t need to claim to know the mind of God to do anything!  Unless, of course, you want to justify genocide.  Which I know you don’t want to do.  So drop the pretense, and work to glorify God in your own atheistic way.

Edit

This is Zippy’s thesis from 2007, I surely read his article.  I hope I expounded on it a bit though.  Of course, this refutation of utilitarianism probably goes back a long way, to when Bentham was named an honorary citizen of France during their revolution.  Anyway, this is a blog, and I’m a cupcake, so I’m not really expected not to plagiarize 🙂 I like Zippy so I’m giving him a link.

Advertisements

8 responses to “Utilitarianism + White supremacy = genocide”

  1. Max says :

    Utilitarianism is only retarded if you assume that there exists some Universal, Objective Utility Function instead of recognizing the reality that every individual’s utility function is different. Once you do that, you realize that literally every ethical system ever imagined can be re-framed in utilitarian terms, and thus it is sensible to say that every person’s ethical system IS, in some important sense, a utilitarian one. This is true even of supposed anti-utilitarians like you, peppermint.

    If you want to call utilitarianism heresy, you might as well call “living” heresy. It is impossible to live and not be a utilitarian. The only variable is what your utility function looks like.

    • peppermint7889 says :

      if you replace the global utility function with your personal utility, you replace utilitarianism with egoism. I agree that egoism is less retarded than utilitarianism.

      • Max says :

        I wonder if I’ve been misunderstood. Just in case, to clarify: There is No Such Thing as a “global utility function” – the idea that there ever could be is, indeed, extremely retarded. However, every individual has a utility function, even if he fails to acknowledge it. This utility function drives every decision a person makes, including which “flavor” of moral system he’ll follow. Even supposedly anti-utilitarian moral systems are supported and adhered to as the result of (usually subconscious) utilitarian calculations. In this sense, “egoism” is properly understood as a positive claim about how the universe operates, not a normative one about how individuals within it ought to.

      • peppermint7889 says :

        Okay, utility isn’t as easy to define as mass, it’s more subtle, like entropy, but a global utility function certainly does exist. The easy understood and correct claim that it exists is the reason utilitarianism catches on in the first place – that, and the apparent justification for coveting one’s neighbor’s goods and bearing false witness.

        Yes, when you replace the utility function with something else to maximize – like the degree to which virtue is upheld, or the degree to which God is glorified and His commandments are observed – then you replace utilitarianism with something other than utilitarianism.

        As to the whole ‘is versus ought’ thing, Carlyle thinks that an individual’s ought is to do what God appoints to him, which Carlyle sees as an is. Without God, ought can’t really be an is, at which point Carlyle would probably switch to directly mentioning virtue.

      • Max says :

        Kindly delete that other comment; I left it in the wrong thread. Thanks!

        “Okay, utility isn’t as easy to define as mass, it’s more subtle, like entropy, but a global utility function certainly does exist.”

        With all due respect, this conclusion can only be the product of insanity or retardation. Interpersonal utility calculations are impossible, therefore the notion of an objective “global utility function” is pure nonsense. One might as sensibly speak of a square circle.

        Interpreted charitably, one might say that there are an almost INFINITE number of possible “global utility functions” (though we’d be doing violence to the word “global”). In that sense, there is at least one “global utility function” for every person on the planet.

        Also, entropy is easy to define and not at all subtle.

        “The easy understood and correct claim that it exists is the reason utilitarianism catches on in the first place – that, and the apparent justification for coveting one’s neighbor’s goods and bearing false witness.”

        Again, with respect, this is simply wrong. The reason “utilitarianism” catches on is the same reason that all moral systems catch on – it matches up reasonably well with people’s intuitions about how the world is. That these intuitions are delusional matters not. Belief in moral realism is as absurd as belief in God, but both are very common amongst the masses, likely demonstrating that these delusions are somehow adaptive. But a delusion being adaptive does not make it true.

        “Yes, when you replace the utility function with something else to maximize – like the degree to which virtue is upheld, or the degree to which God is glorified and His commandments are observed – then you replace utilitarianism with something other than utilitarianism.”

        um, no you don’t, that was kind of my whole point.

        “Utilitarianism” is best viewed as nothing more or less than the method by which ALL moral systems render judgments, with each individual’s utility function determining the outcome of these decisions/judgments. Should you covet your neighbor’s goods or bear false witness? Once you understand that this is a nonsensical question (because moral realism is false), you can transform it into a reasonable one: WILL you covet your neighbor’s goods or bear false witness? The answer depends on your utility function, parts of which are the so-called “moral values” and/or moral system(s) that you embrace.

        “As to the whole ‘is versus ought’ thing, Carlyle thinks that an individual’s ought is to do what God appoints to him, which Carlyle sees as an is. Without God, ought can’t really be an is, at which point Carlyle would probably switch to directly mentioning virtue.”

        I’ll quote Moldbug here. “No one could possibly describe Carlyle as ‘almost never wrong.’ Carlyle is frequently wrong. His strokes are big. He excavates with a pick, not a dental drill.”

        Either there is no God, or humans have no means of insight into his/her/its mind. Hume’s guillotine remains.

  2. Max says :

    “Okay, utility isn’t as easy to define as mass, it’s more subtle, like entropy, but a global utility function certainly does exist.”

    With all due respect, this conclusion can only be the product of insanity or retardation. Interpersonal utility calculations are impossible, therefore the notion of an objective “global utility function” is pure nonsense. One might as sensibly speak of a square circle.

    Interpreted charitably, one might say that there are an almost INFINITE number of possible “global utility functions” (though we’d be doing violence to the word “global”). In that sense, there is at least one “global utility function” for every person on the planet.

    Also, entropy is easy to define and not at all subtle.

    “The easy understood and correct claim that it exists is the reason utilitarianism catches on in the first place – that, and the apparent justification for coveting one’s neighbor’s goods and bearing false witness.”

    Again, with respect, this is simply wrong. The reason “utilitarianism” catches on is the same reason that all moral systems catch on – it matches up reasonably well with people’s intuitions about how the world is. That these intuitions are delusional matters not. Belief in moral realism is as absurd as belief in God, but both are very common amongst the masses, likely demonstrating that these delusions are somehow adaptive. But a delusion being adaptive does not make it true.

    “Yes, when you replace the utility function with something else to maximize – like the degree to which virtue is upheld, or the degree to which God is glorified and His commandments are observed – then you replace utilitarianism with something other than utilitarianism.”

    um, no you don’t, that was kind of my whole point.

    “Utilitarianism” is best viewed as nothing more or less than the method by which ALL moral systems render judgments, with each individual’s utility function determining the outcome of these decisions/judgments. Should you covet your neighbor’s goods or bear false witness? Once you understand that this is a nonsensical question (because moral realism is false), you can transform it into a reasonable one: WILL you covet your neighbor’s goods or bear false witness? The answer depends on your utility function, part of which are the so-called “moral values” (or moral system) that you embrace.

    “As to the whole ‘is versus ought’ thing, Carlyle thinks that an individual’s ought is to do what God appoints to him, which Carlyle sees as an is. Without God, ought can’t really be an is, at which point Carlyle would probably switch to directly mentioning virtue.”

    I’ll quote Moldbug here. “No one could possibly describe Carlyle as ‘almost never wrong.’ Carlyle is frequently wrong. His strokes are big. He excavates with a pick, not a dental drill.”

    Either there is no God, or humans have no means of insight into his/her/its mind. Hume’s guillotine remains.

  3. disenchantedscholar says :

    Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar and commented:
    Pragmatism is the swiftest means to justify whatever you wanted to do anyway.

Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Utilitarianism + White supremacy = genocide | Reaction Times - May 28, 2014

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

%d bloggers like this: