On the Utility of Judgement

“Do not judge” is a common trope now used both by the socially conservative and liberal. Even if they have different intentions, the result is the same. Universal acceptance is the hallmark of our era, and its calling card is shame cast upon those who judge.

The irony of this is that people tend to conflate shaming with judging. Although they are similar in some ways their differences are important. Public shaming is designed to mold others to fit societal norms while judgment is a part of distinguishing yourself from others. When many speak on the utility of judgment, they are actually thinking of public shaming as a tool to shape society. In this format it is a “civilizing” tool of that carves out universalism itself. This molding of the masses has the opposite effect of judgment.

Judgment is a tool of separation that gives identity to those who use it to distinguish themselves from others. When judgment is externalized its utility is maintaining the borders between one’s in-group and a given out-group. There is no self without judgement and those who shame you for judging are trying to strip you of your boundaries, even if they don’t realize it. Physical and legal lines do not define a people, and without the social boundaries created through exclusivity there can be no “people.” You cannot champion some indefinite amalgamation of White identity without having standards that keep behaviors, and genes, from infecting the in-group.
(Common Filth did nothing wrong… lol this is a good example and I do not fully agree with the man, but I respect him).

The parallels between current forms of White nationalism attacking any constructive criticism of Whites is very similar to mainstream liberals and conservative Christians who attack anyone who judges; neither has an identity they are upholding, just a list of universal “no-no’s.” This is the core of why a nation is only a simulacrum of the tribe and is cursed to forever grasp superficial representations of what it has already lost to its intrinsic expansionist nature. True identity always starts locally and can only be built organically from the ground up; it is only civilization which imposes top down measures of assimilation through the implementation of shame to perpetuate a veneer of behavior that is meant to be mimicked in public. If you take a tribal people and tried to copy their behaviors in order to fit in, you would only further alienate yourself from them. There is no way that any outsider could authentically replicate even the most common of their practices because their conception of “self” has been built from birth.

From the outside it is impossible to see what they see in their identity and they will easily spot and judge those who are different no matter how hard they try. For example, the Sami people of northern Europe can’t be copied by donning similar dress or trying to learn their dialect – their identify is infinitely more complex than that of any nation’s. Since the Sami identity is so organic instead of top down they would immediately distinguish between other similar tribes of Sami and themselves – whereas you might see them as all Sami.

The revolution of civilization is one that’s against human identity and its corresponding nature, but the comforts of it draw you in and keep you dependent. It is your own temptations and need for security en masse which damns you. Most cannot even be bothered to judge their own family for self-correction but shrug that responsibility outward onto their society without regard for their inability to separate rights and responsibility. If you cannot sacrifice or stand for anything then you can’t complain when nothing changes. By placing the responsibility outward you expect others to fix your responsibilities and consequently give your rights away to an ever-growing civilization that has a life of its own and is destructive to those who uphold it.

The logical end of public shaming is universal acceptance. Because of its role in conformity, it invariably parallels civilization’s continuous evolution towards globalism. Globalism is inherently flawed because there is no one way that works for everyone, and even if there were it won’t be forever. Every species is in constant social and biological evolution, with sub-species at various levels of parallel and non-parallel development, so the idea of a single lifestyle being ideal for any long amount of time is to attempt to unnaturally freeze humans in time.

Civilization though isn’t natural nor stagnant. Civilization has taken on an evolutionary course of its own through its continuous cycles of destruction and forced rebirth over the last few millennia and has not been beneficial for those who uphold it when examined in aggregate. Instead of benefitting the species within it, civilization, through the hammer of shaming, serves to shape the people in a way which that works for the system itself. This stands in marked contrast to the 2 million years of local tribalism that humans perpetuated before the mistake of the agricultural revolution. The benefit it had was allowing trial and error to function towards logical ends. Either the local experiment works for the people attempting it (for a certain amount of time at least), it fails because of internal or external pressures and they organically modify it, or the people simply cease to exist.

Without real bonds on a local level, each successive generation has less of a foundation to stand on. In its place is the never ending societal call to proselytize to the masses and absorb new members, create new members, or both. Consequently every generation will continue to rebel from the last –left right left right– until it finally meets a nihilistic universal loss of identity where everything is acceptable that allows for expansion…and judging would only limit growth. The crater left from Universalist shaming dogma is the destruction of boundaries on an ideological level, before it undeviatingly demands the tearing down of physical ones. It starts with the lapsing of personal standards, and ends with your people being out-competed.

A tribe is made of the people within it and while they may feel “tied” to the land, the tribe knows it can migrate just as many species do. Territories shift between animals competing within a species and humans are no different in a natural state. At some point in civilization though, land itself became used to define the people instead of the people defining the land – just as nationalism is a simulacrum of tribalism, so becomes soil a simulacrum of blood. This continuous process we have seen through the centuries parallels the evolution of civilization itself. The larger it gets the more its boundaries change to encompass more, growing like cancer. Public shame within such a society kills local identity because such loyalties would work against the ever-growing civilization; whereas tribal alliance allows for the varying natures of varying peoples.

The only time that one should externalize judgment –differentiated from shaming– is to show your own how they are different from others. Through this the individuals within your group can define the boundaries of the self, determine the identity of the group itself, and (most importantly) define those which will always fall outside of the group in whatever varying degrees necessary; like a bullseye surrounded by rings. It is not top down, as it radiates from each individual “within,” and when expressed outwards it is not used to adapt the “other” but instead to keep them at a distance which does not interfere with the identity of your own. Organic identity allows members to show judgment in forms that the members will recognize and outsiders don’t, functioning as a distinguishing factor from the act of shaming.

Shaping the masses isn’t going to maintain organic identity because the effects maintain civilization. Personal judgment perpetuates an identity through the imposition of standards and limits on the self, extending to the in-group through both perceptible and imperceptible methods. It makes perfect sense that as civilization evolves into its final universalist form only those who judge are shamed… Shaming has always been a tool of conformity and expansion while judgment serves to define and separate – they are mutually exclusive.

2 thoughts on “On the Utility of Judgement”

  1. “The crater left from Universalist shaming dogma is the destruction of boundaries on an ideological level, before it undeviatingly demands the tearing down of physical ones.”

    I have long had a theory that Judaism is what emerged from this crater.

    1. Elaborate please. It is always interesting to me what people get from what I write compared to where I was going with it. I had a right wing friend talking about the importance of public shaming to mold healthy behaviors recently and I started to realize that there wasn’t much of a difference between past points of shaming and leftists shaming. The irony is that leftists/universalists seem to think that theirs isn’t the same just a different point in civilization’s evolution that they are conforming to. The dangerous part to me is that many on the right think we can pick some past point in time and freeze that too as a top down measure of shaping people for their own best (good intentions but I just don’t think it yields results nor do I think the past points trying to be emulated were close to what we idealize them to be).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *