European Values vs. Confucian Values

It’s straight out of Kevin MacDonald’s work about altruistic punishment, Northwest European egalitarian individualists needing an “overarching moral system” in order to cooperate compared to Eastern clan-based values where family and tribe come before abstract moral concerns.

In Confucius’ Analects, we are told of a man called Kung the Upright whose father stole a sheep. Kung testifies against his father. The Duke, as he reports the case to Confucius, is proud of what he considers to be Kung’s uprightness.

But Confucius disagrees, saying that in his country, the son who would protect his father is the one considered upright.

“My brother and I against my cousin, my cousins and I against the world.”

28 thoughts on “European Values vs. Confucian Values

  1. Hello HR,

    If I am not mistaken, Confucianism is a “sub-religion”, a toned down religion for the masses while Taoism is the one for the elite.
    Many cohesive societies are founded on such “religious” duality, exoterism/esoterism, one for the common man, one for the initiated elite.
    This duality is absent in Western societies, thus the absence of a legitimate elite, the void being filled by “we know who”.
    James O’Meara’s expertise on the matter would be greatly appreciated.

    Like

    1. @A Zobbo

      A good case can be made that while America’s exoteric religion is Protestant Christianity, the esoteric religion of the elites was Freemasonry. To avoid confusion, remember that English Freemasonry is not nearly as radical or revolutionary as French Masonry, and that American Masonry was even farther away from French Masonry. The American Founders mostly rejected the French Revolution as it devolved into the Reign of Terror, the Cult of Reason, and atheism.

      There is and always has been an American elite, an aristocracy, it is just less focused on heredity, although it never ignored heredity completely. The American Founders saw themselves as a superior elite to the British and French aristocracy that had become inbred and degenerate (and was often more German than English anyway.)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. The whole of European aristocracy is inbred and degenerated. Let’s not forget the English one was originally from French descent :
        Plantagenet, Montagu, Lancastre, etc the motto of the Queen and British monarchy being in French : “Dieu et mon droit”, “Honni soit qui mal y pense”).
        But those are from times long gone by and thus irrelevant.
        You may not like what I am about to say but Anglicanism (see Cromwell and his love for the Old Testament) and Protestantism are religions compatible with judaïsm (based on materialism, acceptance of usury, all things Christianity rejects).
        Their creations have been greatly influenced by Rabbis and jewish scholars (i.e. Pic de la Mirandole).
        I will not mention the usurpation of the throne of England by the frankist family of Windsor with the help of the Dutch jewish merchants.
        Thus, the British monarchy has evolved into mercantilism : the obscene alliance of the aristocracy and the merchants, where the power of the state is put at the service of private interests (see the Opium wars fought to enrich the jew Sasson – and incidentally the Scott Robertson).
        I believe Masonry is perverted because it has abandonned metaphysics and spirituality from the start to adopt humanism and all the ideologies and “philosophies” of the Renaissance that places Man at the center of the world and the measure of all things.
        The horrors of the French revolution are nothing more than natural consequences of this degeneracy (the British aristocracy and merchants influenced it, see Voltaire).

        Now, about the Founding Fathers for whom I have upmost respect.
        They rejected the whole European royalist system (the Declaration of Independance is prior to the French Revolution) and implemented a beautiful constitution.
        Did it find its root in Free Masonry or older esoterism ? I don’t know enough about the subjetc.
        But it sure has been perverted beyond recognition : isn’t the head of US Free Masonry the B’nai Brith ?

        Like

      2. isn’t the head of US Free Masonry the B’nai Brith ?

        No. Catholic superstitions about Masonry are comical and based on little more than projections. All your criticism of Protestantism is true, as far as it goes, but it goes double for Catholicism itself – the entire edifice of Catholicism is based on the Old Testament, all the great Catholic art illustrates the Old Testament – even the Sistine Chapel – and even the representations of New Testament stories are themselves of course in the context of the Old Testament.

        The Catholic criticism of Protestantism as being “Jewish” are as absurd as the Catholics projections about homosexuality – the entire core of Catholicism is Jewish – and homosexual (celibate priests.)

        But all of this is just history – America is a thoroughly modern society, the Protestant religion – AND Freemasonry – and simply symbolic traditions at this point with virtually zero influence except indirect and historical.

        Frankly I’m simply against going back in time and finding a specific “moment” where things went wrong and if we just “get back” to before that time things will be alright. History is what it is and it doesn’t change, you can no more reverse the philosophies of the Enlightenment or the Renaissance than you can reverse the orbit of the earth.

        The idea that Europe was all wonderful until the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, the Revolution, whatever, is just ahistorical. We can’t “go back” so we may as well focus on “going forward.”

        Like

  2. Oh I do agree. I am not Catholic as such, only maybe in a Marcionist way : I recognise no redeeming quality in the Catholic church.
    But the catholic dogma is a different matter in that it is antinomic to the old testament.
    The Sixtine Chapel and the whole of the Italian renaissance is nothing more than an extravaganza celebrating the power freak Princes of the Renaissance : little ragged plotters who portrayed themselves as heroic Roman Emperors.

    As for homosexuality, and that may come as a shock to you (and all you alt-right people) but I have nothing against it as such, I don’t give a xxxx about who fùxs who as long as it’s done behind closed doors and that it’s not promoted.
    (Doesn’t Sade tell us that sexual perversion has to be reserved to an elite ?)
    But I have upmost disdain for LGBTQ, gay pride, gender theory and all the crap promoted today. What pride can one find in ones anus ? Sodomy is at best a hobby. All this display of degeneracy would make real great homos (lets say Plato and his Academia) shiver in horror.

    About historicity, be it materialistic or idealistic, I’m afraid my English is not good enough to engage in such a debate. Unfortunately because that(s the heart of the matter.
    I’ll just point out that there is no moment, no turning point in history but a slow degradation in conciousness, the abandon of all principle of unifaction and spirituality and the adoption of division, individualism.
    You can see I am anti-Hegelian, I don’t see history as progress to a golden future.
    Not Saying either that everyting was perfect before Renaissance or Enlightment but those periods undeniably played a noxious role in leading us where we are togay.
    There’s no turning back but we have to recognise that in order to go forward in a positive way.

    Last, a legitimate elite does have to care about heredity and race. It has to care and cater for it’s people. It can’t indulge in cosmopolitism, multiculturism and misgenation, that’s nonsense.

    Like

    1. “a slow degradation in conciousness”

      This is just a reverse of Whig history (“Enlightenment” history.) As the Whigs said history is “evolving” and “going forward and higher” – so Catholics (or “Traditionalists” or whatever) say that things are “degrading” or “devolving.”

      Both are false; the traditionalists are wrong that history is a cycle, and the Whigs are wrong that history is a straight line that goes from “down” to “up.”

      As far as “individualism” – see Kevin MacDonald’s work on the Church, how it’s attack on cousin marriage – including distant cousin marriage (as in third or fourth cousins) and its insistence on monogamy had the effect of decreasing tribalism.

      The start “individualism” from the Reformation or the Enlightenment is ahistorical – the Church itself was a part of that process, long before the Reformation (500 is not 1000 years before the Reformation) and, in fact, in the Northern European cultures like the Scandinavians (also MacDonald) the psychology of “egalitarian individualism” is a product of evolution itself partially if not largely because of the cold climate and long winters.

      Frankly philosophies are merely projections of biological consciousness onto the world – as is language itself. Perhaps that makes me a “materialist” but I prefer naturalism and reality to “wordism” which philosophy (outside of logic and math and strict empiricism) tends to be.

      Even long after the Enlightenment, most European and American elites were White Nationalist, pro-White, racially conscious and even against miscegenation (unlike the Latin American elites which tended to indulge it.)

      If we want to “go back” and find where we “went wrong” – I would suggest that it was about 1960, when most Americans bought Television sets. It was the era of mass media that actually began the change away from White Nationalism – and it took nearly 20 years of TV to do it.

      Of course we cannot “go back” to the era before electronic mass media, but there is certainly no point “going back” to before the moment when the actual anti-whiteness began to take hold. Alexander the Great encouraged his generals to marry native women in order to build a “multi-racial empire” – are we to “go back” to before classical Greece? Of course we can’t.

      I am personally only interested in pro-whiteness, all the rest is merely context.

      Like

      1. Just a few points before I go out. Hope we’ll carry on with the debate, great talking to you. – More than monogamy, the problem lies with exogamic monogamy (finding partners outside the tribe, the clan, the region, etc) : pushed to the end of its logic, this principle leads to…misgenation, innit ? – Naturalism is indeed pure materialism. It negates all supranaturality, metaphysics, transcendency. That doesn’t satisfy me intellectually : there has to be something else.- whiteness is not only skin color, a mere result of evolution,it is a SPIRIT. – According to me, Alexander the Great was an asshole. You can encourage copulation, not misgenation. But an Empire is by definition multicultural/multiracial – a nation/a people dominating other nations/other people. That’s why they end up crashing. – TV as the demise of White America is very materialistic. What about political explainations like immigration laws and civil rights ? – I got into Tradition only a few months ago, shocking and enlightning but I have only scratched the surface and in the search for info one come across a lot of crooks and twisters. – And maybe the most important question of all : how can you hope to defend Whiteness while disregarding the context ?

        2017-07-04 18:38 GMT+00:00 Hipster Racist :

        > Hipster Racist commented: “”a slow degradation in conciousness” This is > just a reverse of Whig history (“Enlightenment” history.) As the Whigs said > history is “evolving” and “going forward and higher” – so Catholics (or > “Traditionalists” or whatever) say that things are “degrading” >

        Like

      2. Just a few points before I go out. Hope we’ll carry on with the debate, great talking to you.
        – More than monogamy, the problem lies with exogamic monogamy (finding partners outside the tribe, the clan, the region, etc) : pushed to the end of its logic, this principle leads to…misgenation, innit ?
        – Naturalism is indeed pure materialism. It negates all supranaturality, metaphysics, transcendency. That doesn’t satisfy me intellectually : there has to be something else.- whiteness is not only skin color, a mere result of evolution,it is a SPIRIT.
        – According to me, Alexander the Great was an asshole. You can encourage copulation, not misgenation. But an Empire is by definition multicultural/multiracial – a nation/a people dominating other nations/other people. That’s why they end up crashing.
        – TV as the demise of White America is very materialistic. What about political explainations like immigration laws and civil rights ?
        – I got into Tradition only a few months ago, shocking and enlightning but I have only scratched the surface and in the search for info one come across a lot of crooks and twisters.
        – And maybe the most important question of all : how can you hope to defend Whiteness while disregarding the context ?

        Like

    2. “supranaturality”

      A word that is meaningless – it is simply another word for “emotion” and it can be measured by electrodes hooked to your brain. It is a “lie word” – a phantom.

      “transcendency”

      Another word that has no objective meaning, a ghost.

      “metaphysics”

      Empiricism has a metaphysics.

      I find talk about “spirit” “transcendence” and the “supernatural” to be intellectually uninteresting and unsatisfying.

      To paraphrase Goring, “When I hear the word ‘transcendence’, that’s when I reach for my revolver.”

      The problem with America’s elites are that they are imperialist and globalist – they are not satisfied with being the elite of America, they want to be the elite of the entire earth. This is a very typical American problem but hardly unique to America.

      “TV as the demise of White America is very materialistic. What about political explainations like immigration laws and civil rights ? ”

      Non-white immigration was pushed through TV propaganda – and it was an agenda of White capitalists and Jewish anti-whites.

      Like

      1. Well, difficult to carry on, I don’t want you to reach for your gun and shoot me…
        But I understand your point : worlds like those are not defined by modern science, it refutates them.
        TV is the medium through which propaganda was passed, could have been done (with less efficiency) with radio, movies, newspapers or whatever. So the key point here is the objective, the push for multiculturalism.
        The White elite in European countries have abandoned all “metaphysics”, they have forgotten what the European spirit is.
        They are therefore very short sighted : to produce and reproduce, an elite has to rely on and care for his kin
        (the jews have understood that well, that’s why they put so much effort on education and emphasis on cohesion).
        They are now pushing hard to create a multi-ethnic society.
        A winning formula on a short term basis – for sure it allows them to cling on to power AGAINST their white electors.
        But on a long term this will lead to their own demise : a white elite can’t emerge from a mass of brown people.
        UNLESS they adopt a strategy similar to the one used by jews – a minority of dominating and self-confident people.
        But as Pr McDonald rightly put it we don’t have the right frame of mind for that.

        Like

  3. No sarcasm in my questioning :
    – are you a positivist – do you believe in the omnipotence of science ? (Descartes, Auguste Comte) ?
    – do you believe in monocentrism (that our great grand dads got out of “Ethiopia” 50.000 years or so ago ?

    Like

    1. Ah “faire”, on l’emploie à toutes les sauces ! Incidentally it also means “to make”.
      In English, “to get” is something equivalent in the sense it’s used in all kinds of contexts (up, down, off, upset, around, lucky…the list is endless).
      I have realised you’re not happy with the use of “spirit” so we may use another terminologies. What about “frame of mind” and “abilities” ?
      It is of upmost importance to me because I come across so many whites who I don’t consider white any longer that I wish to define what “whitness” is.

      Besically, we refrain from using “white” (or caucasian) because of political correctness. Almost as bad as using the term Aryan nowadays.

      Like

      1. I think “White” is an American word. Europeans are all “white” – a specific group of Caucasian. Arabs are Caucasian but not European.

        But in America we had White (European) and Black (African) and Red (American “Indians.”) Now “Brown” – which often means “Mestizo” (or “Latino”) – which is usually a mix of White, Red, and some Black. Europe has nothing similar except for maybe far eastern Russian with some Asian mix, or Southern European with some Turkish mix?

        As for “spirit” – if by this we mean “culture” that is fine. But speaking of “supernatural,” like religion, is not useful.

        Many Whites are no longer European by culture, sure. Maybe that is bad, maybe that is ok. Many racially white people have adopted another culture. I like European culture (including American, Australian, New Zealand, Canadian, South African) but culture changes faster than race/DNA.

        It’s true that culture is created by a race, and then race influences culture. So the Catholic European culture changed European DNA by regulating marriage/birth. The first time I heard Scottish bagpipe music, I loved it – more than I liked African tribal music. That is likely influenced by DNA as well.

        But too many people place culture first, and race last. So E. Michael Jones says that an African Catholic speaking German in Germany is more German than a German-American atheist speaking English – this is absurd.

        As for the “spirit/culture of whiteness” – who knows? It is many things, but politically speaking what matters (to me) is that America is ruled by anti-whites, imperialists who want to reduce the population of Whites.

        Like

  4. It’s a bit simplistic given that Whites are still as tribal as anyone else in the current age.

    Most issues lie with the manifestations of said tribalism.

    Beaners, colored, sushis have no problem being pro-beaner, pro-colored and pro-sushi.

    Whites on the other hand cannot accept “Whiteness”/their nation as their default tribe, it has to be something else…

    “Gender”/sex orientation, religion, hobbies, political affiliations, social status/socioeconomic class, sports teams, literally morphology (i.e. whale acceptance) or some unrelated form of constructed and artificial identity.

    But their tribal identity is always abstract and inclusive, never as concrete or deterministic as with race/nation/family which is pretty much the cornerstone of the beaner/asian/arab/merchant worldview.

    Of course, it doesn’t help that White Nationalism, and White Nationalism only, is demonized as hate if not genocidal.

    That’s not to say that MINOs can’t be radical about gender, religion or social status, but those concerns never take primacy over actual tribal issues as with Whites.

    I can only think of two occurrences of successful “assimilation”, where the powers that be got MINOs to think like deracinated Whites: the Islamic religion and US gangs.

    These are the only two abstract concepts that, in some cases, override MINO tribalism.

    Other than that you’ll never see two blacks or beaners getting into flame wars over NFL or feminism.

    Even political affiliations are seen through the prism of tribal advancement, hence most MINOs will dismiss Sowell & Elder as uncle Toms without ever having read either.

    “Frankly philosophies are merely projections of biological consciousness onto the world”

    So blacks actually do have philosophers.

    I thought Lil Wayne was just a fgot who liked talking about dicks, turns out he was projecting his biological consciousness on the philistine and bigoted masses 🙂

    Like

    1. It’s true that “white” is too broad of a category to define a tribe and “white” only becomes a tribe in the context of non-whites.

      But in America, “white” just meant “American” and there were always Blacks and Reds, so Whites were tribal in mixed company.

      Also in America traditionally, the white tribes were based on ethnicity/language and increasingly religion – all the thousands of Protestant sects were tribes that developed just as organically as the tribes of Europe like Scottish or Catalonian or Breton or Bavarian.

      Like

    2. “I thought Lil Wayne was just a fgot who liked talking about dicks, turns out he was projecting his biological consciousness on the philistine and bigoted masses”

      That Tyrone, is hilarious !
      What about we try to define what Whiteness is ?

      Like

      1. I find the question of crucial importance so I have a go :
        Is whiteness characterised by the ability to develop a civilisation founded on science and technology ?

        Like

      2. Hey, I try my best to write in English, I can make mistakes that can lead to misunderstandings so no need to be condescendant.
        Saying that whiteness comes from DNA and gives white skin is similar to the antiracist definition that says “race is only skin deep, inside we’re all the same, we all bleed red et all”.
        I was asking what, in your eyes, epitomises whiteness but for the obvious physical appearances.

        Like

      3. I’m not mocking any language difference, I’m suggesting that trying to go beyond “materialism” is just words – it would be just as ridiculous in any language. “Spirituality” and “transcendence” and the like are just labels, words. If they do not refer to something that can be observed, they are meaningless – in any language.

        There is subset of English called “English Prime” – a linguistic experiment – it is the entire English languages EXCEPT no use of the verb “to be.” It’s a good thought exercise because “to be” implies some sort of independent “being.”

        I took French in high school, but the only thing I can remember is that French has that verb “faire” – which we translate usually as “to do” but in many cases in French is used where in English one would use “to be.”

        Saying that whiteness comes from DNA and gives white skin is similar to the antiracist definition that says “race is only skin deep

        No it is nothing like that at all, because skin color is about the least important aspect of race/DNA.

        What … epitomises whiteness but for the obvious physical appearances.

        DNA defines Whiteness. DNA influences brain development, so of course there are IQ differences. MacDonald suggests that Northwest Europeans are “egalitarian individualists” and “moralistic” and less tribal than others and engage in “altruistic punishment.”

        So White DNA can develop cognitive traits that differ from non-whites.

        The term “White” is basically an American term, few Europeans use the term “White” – they use “European” or specifically “French” “Scottish” etc.

        But none of these things need to be understood outside of empiricism, no need for “spirituality” or the like.

        Like

    3. OK my friend, your main concern is of political nature : you want your country ruled by whites in the interests of whites.
      Perfectly understandable and so do I !
      Culture is indeed the production of a people but not of a race despite evident similarities.
      I am stating the obvious but the Italian culture is closer to the British one than it is to Japanese.
      And obviously it’s easier for people to adapt to cultures closer to their : the US society was a cohesive one as long as it was mostly composed of Europeans, problems started when non-europeans were introduced in large numbers.
      And culture is partly the produce of politics, mainly nations that are political contructs and that impose many elements that greatly influence culture – frontiers, language, religion, regime, etc
      So culture is not wholy about nature, it evolves continuously and it can be aquired.

      My questionning is of a completely different nature.
      Even antiracists admit west africans are the best sprinters or that east africans are gifted for marathon running. They have physical predispositions for those activities – nature not nutrure.
      What I am searching for is the nature common to all Europeans – call it physical and mental abilities, qualities, virtues, the “soul” or the “spirit” (not in a religious sense) of whiteness.
      All the things that make you say “this guy is white, he thinks and acts like one”.
      For sure you’ll find my quest useless and from a pragmatical point of view you’re right.

      Like

      1. @A Zobbo

        What I am searching for is the nature common to all Europeans – call it physical and mental abilities, qualities, virtues, the “soul” or the “spirit” (not in a religious sense) of whiteness.

        Kevin MacDonald might says it’s egalitarian individualism, a moral ingroup, comparatively low tribalism, altruistic punishment, and high trust societies – all cognitive features. Others would surely point to IQ and, as you mentioned earlier, technology. There has been recent work done on y-chromosomes correlated to certain personality traits.

        So the “spirit of whiteness” would of course be more than just light hair and blue eyes, but include actual cognitive traits.

        Like

      2. I was very impressed by Pr Mc Donald’s book The culture of critique (also watched a few videos).
        And yes on all counts, we aknowledge the same facts.
        Still, the situation has gone awry and I can’t resolve myself to accept that as a fatality so I have spent years looking for answers.
        I found none in politics and ideologies.
        I then turned to the “great” philosophers, although interesting, IM(not so)HO for the most part it’s a whole load of horse manure : a lot of questionning, smart intellectualism but no answer and more than often just bullshit or pure wickedness (won(t cite names).
        What am I left with ? Suicide ? Nihilism ? Terrorism ? Sex drugs and rock n roll to silence my concience ?
        Before I resolve to one of these options I try one last thing but you have clearly stated you don’t want to hear about it 😉

        Like

      3. Oh, what I stated above was in no way meant to put you down : you may be right and more advanced in your reflexion and your understanding.
        Simply we all have been through different experiences in life and with some choices I put myself in a situation that is hard to bear.
        Therefore, I need something to cling on to, to keep me afloat, be it a dead end.

        Like

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