A Journal for Western Man-- Issue VII
G. Stolyarov II
Amid a hailstorm of cries emerging from the academic left, urging people not to �be bigots� and �appreciate the value of other cultures�, ethnic and racial prejudice continue to plague businesses, educational facilities, and cultural relations. Affirmative action, the policy of hiring on the basis of skin color, �minority� quotas on college admissions, and a nihilistic pop-culture which brazenly parades itself as �black� continue to encourage an individual�s reliance upon the aspects of his genome identifying him with a particular ethnic pressure group rather than his personal merits and capacities for advancement in his academic or career standing. At a superficial glance, it would seem that the �liberal� academics would condemn such treatments as bigoted or intolerant toward those who are discriminated against. But they maintain not merely a contemptuous silence in regard to the victims of job profiling and violent slurring from the slums, but rather emerge as the prime advocates of such practices! This is because the attitudinal foundations of the men masquerading as champions of �civil liberties� are closer to those of an Adolf Hitler than of a Martin Luther King.
Today�s academia is afflicted with the ideology of ethical and metaphysical relativism, which declares that there exists no objective standard for categorizing facts and evaluating values, that in fact �anything goes�, be it arbitrary, self-destructive, or even coercive. No logical validation is required for the actions of a particular entity, and when a rational and an irrational deed are compared, all evidence for the rationality of the former is discarded. As long as something �works� for a particular entity (and the definition of �works� is whatever the entity views it to be), no individual is permitted to raise a squeak against it. Chinese foot binding had �worked� to create a gender underclass incapable of rising on its own accord. Aztec human sacrifice had �worked� to entrench a cabal of superstition-spewing priests within the bastions of power. So had the mass slaughter of Jews during the Holocaust �worked� to �unify� the devastated German people toward a common goal (the value premise behind the goal considered irrelevant by the relativists). It is correct to view this doctrine as harboring a blatant disregard for commonsense facts of reality, where, for example, within the sciences a comprehensive scheme of observation, experimentation, theorization, and application is required to employ the data of reality for the interests of man�s prosperity. The peoples and tribes whose cultures focused on witch-doctoring rather than innovation and experimentation had been unable to develop a Scientific Method, and their lack of technology had resulted in catastrophic mortality rates, famines, disease, and feudal tyranny. Obviously, they had not been employing what had �worked� for them. They had neglected to discover what works in reality and have languished as a result, implying that a single fundamental fact/value scheme is inherent in existence.
Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises had identified a pillar on which the relativists rely in order to exhibit the pretense of refuting the above reasoning. Its name is polylogism, and it asserts that particular �collective entities� (genetic races or socioeconomic classes) are endowed with differing structures of mind and a different �race logic� or �class logic�. When a Western middle-class thinker criticizes the sloth and stagnation of destitute Polynesian natives, he is utilizing his own �white bourgeoisie logic�, which, because it is not �their Mongoloid proletarian logic�, is automatically rendered futile when directing any criticisms against savages who devour their neighbors as a sign of �respect� and deck their totem poles with the skulls of their victims.
Von Mises describes a typical scenario which would be advocated by a polylogist. �Some ethnologists tell us that it is a mistake to speak of higher and lower civilizations and of an alleged backwardness of alien races. The civilizations of various races are different from the Western civilization of the peoples of Caucasian stock, but they are not inferior. Every race has its peculiar mentality. It is faulty to apply to the civilization of any of them yardsticks abstracted from the achievements of other races. Westerners call the civilization of China an arrested civilization and that of the inhabitants of New Guinea primitive barbarism. But the Chinese and the natives of New Guinea despise our civilization no less than we despise theirs. Such estimates are judgments of value and hence arbitrary. Those other races have a different structure of mind. Their civilizations are adequate to their mind as our civilization is adequate to our mind. We are incapable of comprehending that what we call backwardness does not appear such to them. It is, from the point of view of their logic, a better method of coming to a satisfactory arrangement with given natural conditions of life than is our progressivism.� This interpretation, of course, cannot stand the test of an objective standard of functionality for every human being, derived from a peculiarly human trait, that men must employ reason for cognition and utility of reality, reason being the non-contradictory identification of factual data and their application to man�s life. If all men are endowed with such a capacity and a distinct requirement of human nature, then there can be no founded delusion concerning functionality for one group of that, which fails for another.
Therefore the polylogist will proclaim that there exists a biological difference between races and classes, that the �varying� structure of the organism of a Chinese would somehow necessitate for his survival the practice of foot binding or the Daoist vegetable attitude toward the material world, or, in a more modern context, that an African-American C student�s �genetic/socioeconomic past� would require a college admission for him at the expense of a Caucasian honors student. Von Mises demonstrates how the facts of intercultural relations refute such an absurdity. �The Asiatics and the Africans no less than the peoples of European descent have been eager to struggle successfully for survival and to use reason as the foremost weapon in these endeavors. They have sought to get rid of the beasts of prey and of disease, to prevent famines and to raise the productivity of labor. There can be no doubt that in the pursuit of these aims they have been less successful than the whites. The proof is that they are eager to profit from all achievements of the West. Those ethnologists would be right, if Mongols or Africans, tormented by a painful disease, were to renounce the aid of a European doctor because their mentality or their world view led them to believe that it is better to suffer than to be relieved of pain. Mahatma Gandhi disavowed his whole philosophy when he entered a modern hospital to be treated for appendicitis.� China today, despite the shortcomings of its government, is experiencing industrial growth and a surge in entrepreneurship precisely because it has embraced Western methods of production, Western practices of seeking a global export market, and the beginnings of a Western, capitalistic political and economic theory. A man of the Mongoloid race, or of the African race, can become just as apt and affluent from the utility of the achievements of Newton, Locke, and Rockefeller as can a Caucasian. A proletarian in the slums can rise to the level of a prosperous businessman or inventor if he logically develops a cost-effective method of production or marketing strategy or technological gadget. In regard to prosperity, a Polynesian is not condemned to eternal fluctuations between starvation and cannibalism. Neither is a man in a free, Western society forever entrenched within a rigid caste system. Thus, there cannot be inherent genetic differences between races, and cultural practices, ideologies, and mindsets are ultimately dependent on the judgment of the originating individuals and those of the latter�s followers on whether or not to support the particular doctrine.
Polylogism is ludicrously flawed, but what are its implications in practice? A hint is to be derived from the fact that the Marxists had been polylogists; so had the Nazis in Germany. The former had ruthlessly confiscated property from, excluded from universities, and sentenced to slavery in the gulags those whose class affiliation was �bourgeois�. The latter committed genocide in the millions against members of races not of �pure Aryan stock�. The question emerges, however, �How does a viewpoint of collectives as immune to judgment and inherently divergent result in the persecution of one by the other?� Polylogism in the context of an Aryan master race would state that because the racial identity of, say, the Chinese or the Polynesians or the Jews renders them inevitably �backward� (in the context of �Aryan logic�) or, in the example of the Jews, inherently �exploitative�, there exists from the standpoint of �Aryan logic� an irreconcilable conflict between the �master race� and miscellaneous ethnic groups. Because no common ground can be found between the followers of �different� systems (as, if a German cannot grasp Jewish logic, neither can a Jew grasp German logic), the only solution to the conflict is not persuasion and analysis, but brute, unthinking force. Just as the Polynesians are allowed to, under this vile calculus, disembowel and roast a Western missionary who seeks to teach them basic arithmetic (as he is irreconcilable with Polynesian logic), so can the Germans vaporize the Jewish people as a different species acting upon a framework to which the Germans cannot relate. What results ultimately is a violent contest of brutality, determined by which ethnic group is able to amass the greatest amount of coercive pressure to violently squelch the others. The Marxists had admitted this with a greater degree of frankness, claiming that all the objections to their immoral and unrealizable theories were from the standpoint of �bourgeoisie� economists who were inherently incapable of fathoming the essence of socialist theories and thus needed to be swept aside by the rising tide of proletarian revolution.