Although, as we have seen, the naricissism of small differences is important to our contemporary NeoNazis, mostly travelling under the more benign-sounding banner of the "alt-Right," observers should not indulge them: these folks are Nazis, who simply missed their decade in the 1930s. (Some of them are even exquisitely sensitive to public relations, and realize that "alt-right" is much less ominous than their actual identity.)
All of which brings us to "Charles Martel," the pseudonym of one of the "philosophy" bloggers at what I jokingly called awhile back "Stormfront for philosophers," except I'm beginning to wonder if it is a joke. Here is Martel defending today's Nazis:
A key thesis of the alt-right, as some contributors here have discussed, is that race is a real feature of the human person (just as sex is a real feature of the human person) and that one’s race can, to a large extent influence (or perhaps outright determine), a people’s intelligence, personality types, temperament, and so forth. The truth of this thesis, the alt-righter might claim, can be grasped at the level of common sense by simply having interactions with persons of various races.
Quite innocently and without meaning to cause scandal, an observer may notice, for example, that the Japanese he has met tend to be deferent and non-confrontational, or that Sub-Saharan Africans he has met tend to be joyous and energetic, or that the Italians he has met may be expressive, loud and impatient, that the Swedes he has met tend to be smarter than the Pygmies he has met, and so forth. But there is also plenty of empirical evidence for this thesis. (Perhaps this is the claim that Shapiro finds “racist”; if so, then either he has a very trivial account of what racism (e.g., the claim that there are racial differences, something that is hardly objectionable and is as true as the claim that there are differences between the sexes) is or he is simply wrong.)
Next comes the following claim by the alt-righter: these biological facts about one’s race go on to influence, outright determine, or, more poetically, flavor the sort of civilization that a race will establish. Thus the high-IQ race that is characteristically deferent and non-confrontational race will establish a peculiar and unique sort of civilization and the low-IQ race that is characteristically brutish, violent and present-thinking will establish a peculiar and unique sort of civilization. The alt-righter might additionally—and very plausibly—claim that a low-IQ race that is characteristically brutish, violent, and present-thinking will not—and perhaps cannot—establish the sort of civilization that the high-IQ, deferent and non-confrontational race can establish (and vice versa).
Now, if there really are racial differences in intelligence, personality, temperament, and so forth—and there is overwhelming evidence that there are such differences between the races—and these differences contribute to (or give a flavor to, or determine, etc.) the sort of civilization that a race will create, then it is not implausible at all to suggest that Western civilization—by which we mean European civilization—can only be fully and genuinely carried on by people of European biological stock (just as, say, Jewish civilization can only be genuinely or fully carried on by people of Jewish stock). Other races that have some biological similarity to people of European stock may carry European civilization forward to some extent—we could say not genuinely (as do, for example, the Japanese, to some extent, in their appreciation of classical music). But the differences between the race groups will inevitably result in differences in the way that European civilization can be carried out, just as we would expect Europeans (that is, people of European biological stock) to be able to carry on with Japanese civilization in a limited manner but never genuinely.
This is quite amazing, on so many levels: the conflation of culture with race, the cherry-picking of discredited "evidence", the inability to distinguish causation from correlation, all in the service of the most ugly and dangerous Nazi myths about "European biological stock" (as distinct from "Jewish stock" and so on). This is sick, sick stuff--we thought it was defeated in 1945!--but here it is on a blog that purports to represent contemporary philosophers "on the right." These are not philosophers "on the right," these are NeoNazi morons.
Martel continues in the comments:
Humans are by nature tribal and hierarchical and have biological preferences for members of their racial in group. Placing groups of various different races in a shared territory and government invariably creates conflict (i.e., diversity is actually bad, not “our greatest strength”). There are racial differences in intelligence. And so forth.
Did you miss the scientific literature on "biological preferences for members of their racial in group"? Me too! And similarly:
Most alt-righters just want to pursue peaceful means to ensure that whites continue to exist and to have explicitly white ethnostates (if present demographic trends continue, whites will go extinct). This is what everyone of every other race wants and this is perfectly healthy to want. So I’m not sure why whites in particular should be treated with circumspection or suspicion for desiring the same thing people of other races want.
As a profession, we should expose the racist sociopaths in our midst and not act like their cyber-spaces are normal places of discussion, as opposed to sites of pathology and stupidity warranting ridicule and contempt. We know from empirical research that pedophiles are encouraged when they find an on-line group that treats their attitudes as normal (see n. 92 in this article for references); the same phenomenon can occur with NeoNazis like Charles Mantel and his ilk (and sadly he is not alone there).
These people need to own their vile stupidity in the light of the day. E-mail me if you know who these creeps are.