Why do white people see themselves as ethnically illegitimate?
November 20, 2015 § 112 Comments
In a thread at Bonald’s, Josh writes:
The Polish never lacked in morale to the extent that they were/are Polish and not white. Nobody is going to fight and die in order to be a white guy, but the ethnics held out against the worlds largest social engineering project long enough that people in the 70s were reading about the “Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics”.
As I mention in the comment thread, I am beginning to suspect that white is to ethnicity/tribe as right-liberal conservatism is to metaphysically realist traditionalism. That is to say, in the domain of race and ethnicity ‘whiteness’ is very much like ‘conservative’ in the domain of politics. The function of political conservatism is to preserve enough unprincipled exceptions to keep everything from going off the rails, without actually challenging liberalism itself. And the point of whiteness is to preserve enough racial and ethnic identity to keep mother nature at bay, and give conservatives something to complain about, without actually challenging liberalism.
The white race, then, just is the racial embodiment of liberalism. It is the embodied melting pot of interbred liberals. Like liberalism itself it is ultimately self-hating and suicidal. Like liberalism it has to authoritatively discriminate while incoherently denying that it is doing so. Like liberalism it has to hold supreme authority while pretending that authority is illegitimate. Like liberalism it fails to recognize that today’s liberal is tomorrow’s oppressor, fails to see that the gun it is holding is pointed at its own feet.
Whiteness is right-liberalism incarnate, the matter into which the soul of liberalism is infused.
Thoughts?
Zippy Catholic 
So, “ethnicity/tribe” is the posture of metaphysically realist traditionalism. Is that correct?
Could you elaborate on that.
Also, how would this interact with demonstrable race (biological) differences? I am not sure that I am getting the whole picture here.
Thanks.
Johannes:
I added “It is the melting pot of interbred liberals” to the OP, if that makes the proposal more clear.
But in any case this isn’t one of those things I’ve thought through in depth. It is just a new (to me) perspective that I am posting for readers, to be discussed or not depending upon interest.
It appears that you’ve recurred to a general principle: loyalty is virtuous in proportion to the concreteness of its object. So, loyalty to some abstraction – such as all men – is almost always rather vicious. Loyalty to, say, life on earth, would be commensurately more vicious than loyalty to humanity. Ditto then for all the other virtues. Charity begins at home, and so do courage, justice, temperance, and so forth, for it is concrete individuals and decisions that pose us real moral difficulties and challenges, and that impose costs.
Or, as we also say, talk is cheap.
Consistent with your previous posts, If whiteness is liberalism, then whites are the free and equal supermen self created through reason and will? Or they would be if not for the untermensch-oppressor. Who’s that? All other races? NAMs? Jews?
I’m having trouble seeing where you’re going with it.
CJ:
What I am proposing, in a somewhat muddled fashion, is that white people are literally, physically, the offspring of the liberal melting pot. Since liberalism came out of Europe the white gene pool is predominantly European; because of liberal interbreeding whites are less concretely ethnic than other races.
But anyway I mean it in a literal, physical sense of actual ancestry.
Two problem areas I see are the media and the education system (K-12 and beyond).
John Taylor Gatto , Charlotte Iserbyt and many wrote about that. I guess White guilt is easier for the teachers to remember that something educational.
Here is an excellent article on the media:
http://mackwhite.com/tv.html
IF I understand you correctly wouldn’t that mean people of a mix of European ethnicities would be more likely to be liberal? I know that’s not so in my case but I’m not sure I’m getting where you’re going with your post.
White people have not seen themselves as ethnically illegitimate until a decades long campaign of propaganda, highly sophisticated and at all levels, have made them so.
We know many reasons why a significant number of whites see themselves that way now though many of the more important reasons are rarely discussed.
The partitioning of ‘white’ as distinct from European is significant historically. When whites were the main game claiming to be not European if you were Canadian or American or Australian was commonplace; it was still in the main game, a mark of distinction. Recent events are clearly pushing ALL European-descended peoples to a Unite or Die moment of decision.
Ah, well. I suppose there is something to it. By way of example: a professor from Germany is attending our church while on a visiting professorship at the local U. There just happens to be a white, American family with the same last name, but I (black American) am the only person at church who can speak enough German to muddle through a conversation with his kids (their English is at about the level of my German).
Don’t know if you’re aware of it, but there’s a controversial book about race titled Between the World and Me written by a black author. I haven’t read the entire thing, but in one of the excerpts he argues that “whiteness” is a social construct so that Scots-Irish, Germans, etc. could all feel that they were on the top of the social order vis-a-vis blacks, whose identity is authentic. I think his analysis is flawed given that he ignores the various ethnic origins of American blacks, to say nothing of the various Caribbean cultures and recent African arrivals. But it sounds like his thoughts on “whiteness” may have some resonance with yours.
Yes, well, “join our movement or we’re all gonna die” has never struck me as a very compelling argument. But I’m not really the sort who plays nice with others, so maybe that is what keeps me arms length from movement racialism.
CJ:
Sounds interesting, I may look it up.
You go to a country in Europe, and the people are White, but they have an ethnicity. Being White is part of that but not nearly all of it. That is why there is no such thing as White Nationalism in Europe, there are only Nationalisms.
America is different. If you removed all the non-Whites, you still have a multiplicity of ethnicities: it’s an empire, not a nation. White Nationalism is trying to find something unifying that stands above ethnicity. It’s a Universalism for Whites, I think. I’ve seen some emphasize being European, and some even suggest the varied European nations should view themselves as European first (and thus the EU is a good thing).
[…] Source: Zippy Catholic […]
Peter Blood:
I suppose that might be expected from “euromutt” descendants of liberals, looking for an ethnic identity, after a few generations of liberal interbreeding.
Yes. America is mostly deracinated. It’s no surprise, being made up of people who left their homelands (for the most part) to come here and….make money fast.
Not all American whites live like they don’t have ethnicity. The question of how recent deracination is would be an open one though. There was still a competing sense of ethnic identity at least among some whites parallel to the propositional American identity as recently as the 1970s.
I’m happy to toss a bit of blame at (some of) my ancestors, the Nordics who, when they outmarry REALLY outmarry.
White isn’t an ethnicity, it’s a race. Europe isn’t a race, it’s a continent.
Ethnicity encompasses much more than only race or geographic location (language, religion, dress, tradition, food, literature, etc.), which makes it more resilient and more able to deal with small amounts of outbreeding.
And when you’re down here on the ground in Europe, you quickly find out how much the EU is hated, and how strong regional sentiment is. (Even nationalism is dying out, as cross-border ethnic regions were strengthened by Schengen.) White people here stubbornly refuse to recognize that “they all look alike”. Every region wants self-determination. The only countries where nationalism is strengthening are the highly ethnically-homogeneous ones like Sweden, the Netherlands, or Poland. Germany, Belgium, Spain, the UK are splitting up into regional parts, like Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia already have.
I don’t see WN as a viable movement, by the way, as the various American regions have developed their own multiracial ethnicities. Texans are very different from Montanians, who are very different from New Yorkers, and so on. They don’t look alike, they don’t talk alike, they don’t eat alike, they don’t think alike.
I see less racial nationalism coming and more regional separatism or increased federalism. When the Mighty Dollar and the Mighty Euro fall, everyone will turn to the people around them for support. They’re not going to reach out to the other regions, except to cheer on each other’s increasing regionalism. Same as in Europe, where the various regionalist and nationalist parties high-five each other and drink a toast to each other’s successes, but largely keep themselves to themselves.
Obviously, people will become more racist, but White Nationalism is more than that. It’s an attempt to turn a race into an ethnicity, when it typically works the other way around.
Races (in the modern sense of color: white, black, yellow, and red) are simply such large groupings that nobody REALLY identifies primarily with them. We identify primarily with racial groupings within our ethnicity. White Nationalism, African Americanism, and etc. is nonsense because nobody can relate to such a universal scale on the basis of pure biology. Religion (an aspect of ethnicity) is much more effective.
You see that with international corporations here: the French workers (of all hues, often including the French-speaking colonists) hang out together, the Latins hang out together, the Brits hang out together (with the Kenyans, the South Africans, the Indians, the Irish, the Australians and the occasional Nordic — the Empire still lives LOL), the Canadians and Americans huddle together and sometimes attach themselves to a Brit Clan member, and everyone avoids the Germans.
I try to use the term ‘Occidental’ where possible. I do generally agree that there are three main phenotypical types correspondent to races of the spirit, Oriental, Occidental, and Negroid, but within these types there is a massive diversity of races of the character, or ‘ethnicities’ if you like. This means that it is folly to suggest ‘white nationalism’ of any kind because you are grouping people of very different inclinations together.
I don’t deny that in the United States, new ethnicities might have been born (white Northerner and white Southerner respectively), but this term ‘white’ just has very little meaning for people of the Occident. While we are of a common spiritual type (which is why I think Christianity was so successful in converting virtually the entire ‘white race’) it was only Christianity which gave Magyars and Latins any practical common ground whatsoever, because it was an outward expression of a spiritual identity.
It is a great shame to think what could have been with regards to the crusades, as the original mission was for Western Christians under the papacy to help their brothers in Occidental Christianity under Constantinople who were being assaulted by the Turks. For a moment at least it seemed we could see a tangible unity of our peoples for a spiritual cause. My hope is we can actually achieve that in the future, as I think therein lies the only salvation for our people who are in such dire straits.
spot on zippy. This is why “white identity politics” is such a boring topic.
Zippy,
Let me offer an important counter data point. In California liberals complain that Silicon Valley is too “white” and the top UCs are not “diverse”. But these places are filled with people of East Asian and South Asian ancestry in addition to people of European ancestry. Obviously, Asian is starting to count as “white” in California, irrespective of skin color. So I think “white” is really a cultural rather than racial construct.
There is something to that Purple Tortoise. There is an “uncle Tom” phenomenon where when non-whites assimilate well they become adoptively ‘white’ in the sense of being the condemnable race. Symmetrically to how vocal and vehement enough race betrayal is hoped to remove the shameful tattoo of whiteness from an SJW liberal, getting along too well with mainstream white society is thought to make black people (for example) de-facto white. Thus the ‘white Hispanic’ gun-toting George Zimmerman.
Basically, being loyal to the white race by adoption is almost as bad as being white by blood.
The concept of “white” really only works in contrast to “black” due to real discrimination in the past and the continuing economic and educational underperformance of blacks that keeps the oppression narrative alive. East Asians experienced discrimination in California in the past, too, but now that they are financially better off than “whites”, it’s difficult to keep up the oppression narrative. I’d guess that Asians (and Hispanics) are ten times more racist than Europeans on average, but they get a pass since they don’t share in historical “white” guilt. The liberal SJW coalition is going fracture now that the America is no longer just “white” and “black”. There was a recent push to bring affirmative action back to UC, but it was stopped in its tracks when it became apparent that Asians and not “whites” would be the losers under soft quotas. So if SJW liberals want to keep their show going, they’re going to need to put Asians into the “white” category.
I suppose I see whiteness as a consequence of European ethnies mixing in North America in a setting where there were two, radically different peoples/races also present: Indians and blacks. Are you saying that the ethnic mixing was a liberal thing?
I would have liked to have inhertited the niederdeutshe ethnicity of my patriline. I did not because my ancestors moved to America and married anglo-saxons. So I don’t know what I can be , ethnically, other than white.
What about language? We are both acting pretty darn English.
Bruce:
Yes, although as someone without strong views on this subject I am more suggesting it as a possibility than saying it with conviction.
Part of what I find curious, as a Euromutt myself, is my own lack of natural attachment to my putative race. I just don’t seem to have as much in common with ‘whites’ per se as (say) Chinese have with other Chinese, and so the biological connection – that Euromutt North American whites like me are the actual homogenized descendants of a melting pot of liberals from lots of different European ethnicities – just kind of hit me like a bolt of lightning. Maybe I am race-ambivalent (at a ‘gut level’) when it comes to my own whiteness – even though I understand the objective importance of racial and ethnic ties – because it has been bred out of me.
But I don’t know. Maybe this line of thought goes nowhere.
A restatement of the basic thesis:
Q: What was the result when liberals self-selectively cross-bred human beings for anti-racism?
A: white people
Purple Tortoise:
There is of course a lot of actual white-Asian interbreeding in Silicon Valley too. The social construct results in interbreeding, etc: the biological reality of (at least North American) whiteness is that it is the summation of the selective interbreeding of assimilated liberals.
Which makes White Nationalism or White Supremacy one of the most ironic social movements ever.
Zippy:
I think you’re only speaking of Americans, though, and only if you exclude people with a sufficiently different skin tone. The offspring of black and brown self-selected pairings aren’t white people.
I’ll post about this in a few hours, but the short answer is that whiteness was constructed to keep white peasants from cutting the throats of white landowners.
Here’s the detailed page – post will drop in about four hours.
Cane:
Notice the wording of the restatement, as an historical question:
“Q: What was the result when …”
What is happening now is (potentially) distinct: a later phase of the same process.
The notion is that liberals view racial/ethnic outbreeding as an expression of virtue and racial/ethnic inbreeding as discriminatory vice. What this has produced – since most liberals were historically European – is “white people”, a kind of meta-race or meta-ethnicity. The most a North American Euromutt can connect to is Norman Rockwell paintings, baseball, apple pie, Chevrolet, McDonalds, and Campbell’s soup. As nice as these things may be – and they are precisely what I connect to myself at the visceral level – these are shallow roots spread thin over a thousand synthesized cultures melted into a homogenous pot.
The process continues. Now rather than a Pole outbreeding with an Italian as an expression of defiance of The Man and thus liberal virtue, white people – the meta-race produced by liberalism – outbreeding with still more other races becomes the expression of virtue.
Racial purity is ‘evil’; racial impurity is ‘good’. That is (proposed as) what actually, as a historical matter, produced ‘white people’.
Also, this may well have started as primarily an American phenomenon; but it clearly has not stayed within the borders.
I wouldn’t say this is exclusively a liberal phenomenon–there certainly is a power-differential (if you forgive the Socialistese language) motivation to outbreeding as well. See: Byzantine princesses marrying Russians and Turks, German and Japanese war wives, natives mating with European invaders, etc.
But I see your point and it’s well taken. I think it’s the basis of why Arthur C. Clarke imagined the future human race would be all a single shade of brown.
[…] https://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/why-do-white-people-see-themselves-as-ethnically-ille… […]
I think it is the product of people being told that there is no “American culture” and the post-civil rights efforts to demonize whites as the oppressor class. When you are raised to believe, despite the evidence, that there is no true “white American culture” and even if there were, it would be so racist as to not be worth anything good, that is a solid path toward seeing yourself as “ethnically illegitimate.”
The differences between whites from New England down to Alabama are not that great. Aside from some of the fruity elements, even much of the white population on the West Coast is really not that far away culturally. There actually is a common American culture, informed mostly by a mixture of European inputs on top of the old Anglo-Saxon foundation, with a heaping dose of contributions on all fronts from our native black population.
There are aspects of our society that are more imperial than ethnic, but that is true of many European countries. France has always had a large chunk of its population that isn’t ethnically French; Britons, Occitan, Provencal, etc. were well represented. Italy and Germany are even more diverse than we are; most of the “dialects” of Italy are actually separate languages that are at best marginally mutually intelligible.
Mike T:
That is the ‘nurture’ argument, and it has merit. But nurture arguments are not mutually exclusive with nature arguments.
[…] And even this generational model projects a discreteness onto what is really a continuous process. The march leftward takes place inside individual persons as time goes on, as they find themselves disgusted with the intolerant earlier versions of themselves and try to scrub away the despicable remnants of their own origins. Out, vile spot! […]
Is there a distict “white American culture”?
Maybe. I think there’s an American culture and that whites were (until recently) the overwhelming majority of Americans, so they at least have always dominated the culture.
America just has such a short timeline and has always been so diverse. Sort of like Australia. The whites were from so many different places and massive contingents kept arriving; by the time they started meshing into one group, the non-white populations were exploding.
But, in my experience, if you’re a swarthy American living a typical middle-class life, then people think you’re “acting white”. I always find this strange, as nobody here would think I was “acting white” just because I speak properly and am gainfully employed. That’s just… being a normal human.
Like Mike T I would certainly say that white Americans (though not only whites) have a common Anglo-American culture as evidenced by our language, laws, and particular species of liberalism. I don’t think it was a bad thing that “ethnic” whites assimilated into Anglo-American culture but it’s a shame that this culture has been made so shallow, perhaps inevitably so, by its inherent liberalism.
I think Zippy’s idea about outbreeding making people liberal has some truth to it. I don’t know much about all that but it makes sense.
In regards to white nationalism, I like Auster’s objection that WN is too liberal.
I dunno, Mike T and P. Button seem to be missing out on the socialism and collectivism of specific white ethnic American immigrant populations. Those were “white culture”, but quite different in form and structure from what you all are speaking of. I think downplaying or handwaving the massive regional differences among white ethnic groups and states/territories is one of the problems. It’s the flipside of “whites have no culture”. Instead it’s claiming a mono-culture when even the early attempts at it were not very monolithic.
Practical Conservative: I would not disagree about the significant regional differences. I tend to think of Anglo-American culture as more of a substrate than a mono-culture, though I did not really give that impression with my previous comment.
The regional differences are real, but they are not even remotely as significant as they were in 1860. Today, you can move from Upstate NY to Virginia or North Carolina and experience no culture shock because the real divide is urban versus non-urban in most states.
Even most of the “ethnic states” of Europe are only a half dozen or so generations from being hodgepodges of different identities. Italy and Germany still have significantly bigger regional differences than we do. If you go outside of standard Italian, you literally cannot hold a conversation with people who’ve lived their whole lives 100-200 miles from you. Spain is falling apart because of its regional differences. French was only spoken by about 75% of the native population of France until they persecuted the hell out of the speakers of Occitan and Provencal.
Is there a distict “white American culture”?
America, until about 30-40 years ago, was essentially a white country with a small amount of minorities. Therefore whatever was “American culture” was essentially “white American culture.” Blacks certainly had a claim to it in their own right, but there have always been differences between black and white American culture.
The problem is that now as we become diverse, you have more people who are adding non-complementary cultural influences. An Indian Hindu is just so different from what lead us to this point that by definition their slice of “American culture” will be irreconcilable on many fronts with what came before.
Mike T – Having lived most of my life in the Midwest, I see huge differences in white people from other regions of the US. What’s more, “assimilated” black people tend to have more in common with whites from their region than blacks from other regions.
An argument can be made that the main reason why the South is still despised by the “enlightened” across the country is that the South both demographically and culturally most resembles the US that the founders would immediately recognize. Southern liberalism has not evolved nearly as radically as that in much of New England and the West Coast. Southerners also tend to be more rebellious by nature and inclined to say “because you want to force it on me, I’ll reject it out of principle.”
I’d agree that southerners tend to be more rebellious and less governable than whites in other regions. There is an intensely libertarian streak in California too, which kind of surprised me when we moved there, since that wasn’t my prejudice going in. But southerners do seem better at avoiding thinking even a little bit about the implications of their libertarianism, which is probably why they are perceived as “conservative”.
I would actually say that in practice we are far better at organizing functional and diverse political communities than many other groups of whites in the US. There is a much higher degree of racial diversity in the south than in New England, yet no southern state needs a standing army of police like the NYPD to keep our diverse population from imploding into lawlessness and chaos.
P Button,
“In regards to white nationalism, I like Auster’s objection that WN is too liberal.”
I read Auster daily from early on and never remember him characterizing WN-ism as liberal. His complaint was generally about specific people – in the case of WN-ists he saw them as too one-dimensional and many of them as anti-semitic or too tolerant of anti-semitics (e.g. Jared Taylor).
gaikokumaniakku:
I just fished your comment out of the SPAM bucket and approved it, FYI.
I initially nodded to your comment about Hindus, Mike. But then I remembered that some of my own American forefathers were Gullah, which is darned close to coming from Planet Zorkon. America seemed able to assimilate pretty much everything.
At least until the population to be assimilated overwhelmed the natives by sheer numbers. We’re facing that now, here in Germany, and it’s frankly depressing.
Events, not arguments, will be what compels.
Alte, we should hear more about what’s really going on in Germany.
America seemed able to assimilate pretty much everything.
At least until the population to be assimilated overwhelmed the natives by sheer numbers. We’re facing that now, here in Germany, and it’s frankly depressing.
Partial assimilation is fine for small minorities like that. Outside of that, it’s a serious problem. Indeed, a great many of our immigrants are assimilating only in adopting our language and living at peace with our basic laws. That’s really not assimilation in any meaningful sense. The fact that Hindus are often middle and upper class, and better positioned to not only preserve their distinctions, but use politics to protect themselves as a distinct community rather than assimilate fully (which would mean most Indians becoming cultural Christians at the very least) is a serious issue.
Your comment about Germany and immigration is why I said and still maintain that Zippy’s comments about the relative lack of importance of immigration policy to be insane and ironic. If you care about the wanton slaughter of the weakest among us, the current insane immigration policies should be significantly higher in priority than pollution controls. In another 5-10 years, Europe very well may be seeing the wanton slaughter of migrants by the natives. In fact, there are few policies that can more predictably lead to an eventual resolution in mass violence than uncontrolled immigration.
In fact, one of the few observations that Roissy has that even most conservatives could get behind is his quip “diversity + proximity = war.” It’s totally obvious to everyone except UMC liberals and libertarians. We are seeing it play out across the US when the MSM isn’t looking.
Mike T:
Nowhere did I ever even hint that immigration policy is unimportant.
Read more carefully.
Not much to say about Germany, other than that it’s becoming a complete basket case and our Chancellor needs a one-way ticket to the funny farm.
I do think Americans (of all colors) whine a bit about race, though. A diverse group of Christians is easier to deal with than Christians facing off against Muslims and Antifa. Within a few generations, you have a new Christian ethnicity and nobody cares anymore. The future is truly not dire and a massive civil war is not inevitable.
With Muslims (most of whom are not black), you’re just bracing and waiting your turn to get blown up, hacked to death, beaten and robbed, or raped into an invader incubator. And they keep coming and coming and coming…
Of course, it’s illegal here for me to say that, but Zippy has a US-based site.
Nowhere did I ever even hint that immigration policy is unimportant.
And nowhere did I make that claim in my comment. What I said was that you claimed that it is not that important. Implying yes, it’s important, but really not that big of a deal compared to many other things.
As Europe is seeing, bad immigration policy is a package that bundles up war, cultural strife and many other evils all in one. It also brings up the possibility of leaving Europe in a state where the likelihood of millions of Europeans having blood on their hands is increasingly higher with every boat full of Muslim migrants reaching Greece.
Before it’s all said done, I wouldn’t be surprised to see millions of Muslims slaughtered and Greece in flames as her neighbors make her and her people pay in blood for the threat they made during the debt negotiations to weaponize the migrant issue if not treated “fairly.”
Mike T:
You either have terrible reading comprehension or you demonstrate the point I was actually making in the comment you cited.
To reiterate that specific point, someone who agitates for armed rebellion over loose immigration policy but does not advocate (and for decades has not agitated for) armed rebellion over government sponsored mass slaughter of the innocent, is morally confused.
The point was about objective distortion in the moral views of certain advocates of violence. It is a point you still have not shown any evidence of actually grasping.
Mike T:
You are very coy about whether you are merely predicting violence or advocating it. So be a man and tell me which it is. If you unequivocally morally reject the violence you predict, then let your rhetoric reflect that moral rejection. If on the other hand you advocate violence over immigration policy (but not over abortion), say so. If you choose not to do either, don’t be surprised when people with integrity treat your words as equivocal.
Zippy,
ISTM that conservatives are paper alphas as well as big fans of “let’s him and you fight.” Private American citizens have greater material means of quelling racial and immigration problems than Europeans do, yet are far more likely to flee to whiter zip codes than they are. Plus they have the habit of importing one race of nonwhites to fix the problems caused by another race of nonwhites. I think implicit in all of HBD-sphere’s talk of NAM’s (non Asian minorities) is the hope that Asian immigrants will solve all of whites’ problems, and naively assumes Asians will not have agendas of their own.
I used to worry about the kookier parts of the conservasphere going full Nazi, but I realized that their cowardice will prevent that from happening. Now, I just worry about important things.
Aethelfrith:
A lot of what goes on rhetorically can be understood as consequentialism: consequentialism which arises from a failure to consider the morality of concrete actions prior to considering what material options are or are not anticipated to efficiently achieve the goal, whatever it happens to be.
We can observe or predict that violence will result from the operation of various social forces, and that’s fine as far as it goes, as observation. But that is entirely distinct from advocating particular kinds or acts of violence by particular people or groups of people.
We can observe or predict (say) that the war will go on and will be highly destructive. But that is entirely distinct from agitating to drop the atomic bomb on a city of civilians.
There is plenty of reason to believe that the current crop of agitators about immigration policies are violence-advocating consequentialists, through and through. That doesn’t change the objective rank of immigration policy in the slightest, of course. It is an observation/contention about them, not an observation/contention about it.
You are very coy about whether you are merely predicting violence or advocating it.
I have been predicting it all along. What you might call advocacy, I would call a complete lack of mercy toward those self-righteous fools who are paving the way for the worst tragedy in Western history.
There is that equivocation I am talking about.
No, I’m pretty sure that my position is simply one of I could care less what happens to them when their chickens come home to roost.
Just so there is no ambiguity about what I am predicting, I see one of two likely scenarios playing out:
1. The nationalist elements start winning elections and forcefully repatriate most of the immigrants. Most of the violence is minimal. It is stuff like arson attacks on refugee centers and violence against immigrants that won’t comply with deportation orders.
2. The nationalists failing, the situation getting even worse, and ultranationalists taking over. This is where genocide becomes a distinct possibility.
I hope you don’t seriously think I harbor any desire to see #2 play out.
You forgot possibility #3, which is–
The nationalists failing, the ultranationalists failing, and the replacement population marginalizing both.
I’m certain there are more scenarios than the three we collectively proposed, but that’s because I truly have no dog in this fight, rather than saying I don’t but secretly skewing my expectations toward the team that I like.
There are plenty of places on the Internet where folks can play fantasy football or whatever. Here I tend to focus on what is wrong with our thoughts and how we ought to behave. Mike T’s or anyone else’s crystal ball predictions carry about the same weight with me as stock market predictions or what have you. Those kinds of water cooler discussions simply are not very important or credible, and I long ago lost interest in them.
What is wrong with our thoughts, what we actually ought to do, and how we ought to live though are important questions. If anyone wants to actually talk about those things this is the place.
Aethelfrith,
If you’re going to try to slander me, at least have the intelligence to note that I actually admit that I have a dog in the race and have staked my claim to the moderate choice.
FWIW, Zippy, I think your points about abortion are not unreasonable. I have long suspected that many pro-lifers don’t actually believe that abortion is murder, despite claims to the contrary, due to their atavistic horror at the notion of trying a woman who gets one for conspiracy to commit murder.
Now, as a prudential matter, I don’t think we could or should go through the clinics’ logs and start an assembly line to the gallows. However, if one believes that abortion is murder, not merely a class of manslaughter, it should be pretty straight forward to punish it about as harshly as going over to a neighbor’s house and shooting them dead over, say, not taking their trash can in after trash day.
“Is there a distict “white American culture”?
Maybe. I think there’s an American culture and that whites were (until recently) the overwhelming majority of Americans, so they at least have always dominated the culture.”
There was at one point. It’s odd to see that the people here have forgotten about the founding American race: The Anglo-Saxon (btw, which I am not a member of).
Obviously, the cultural confusion started when Southern Anglos imported Africans and Northern Anglos imported Europeans, Levantines, and Jews.
Now, it is quite possible that American Anglos would have become a distinct people from the British regardless due to the cultural contact with natives.
“But then I remembered that some of my own American forefathers were Gullah, which is darned close to coming from Planet Zorkon. America seemed able to assimilate pretty much everything.”
Not really. Assimilation is difficult enough with somewhat similar groups but even more so with large numbers of completely alien races. Both groups can be assimilated in small numbers and worse groups tend to not be those who don’t assimilate but those who partially assimilate i.e. those who assimilate on the outside but keep their internal cultural/racial ways. You could call that pseudo-assimilation. The best example of this would be Jews. The Jews that cause the least problems are the ones are the unassimilated Orthodox while the semi-assimilated Secular Jews are the ones who cause the most problems.
“I do think Americans (of all colors) whine a bit about race, though. A diverse group of Christians is easier to deal with than Christians facing off against Muslims and Antifa. Within a few generations, you have a new Christian ethnicity and nobody cares anymore. The future is truly not dire and a massive civil war is not inevitable.”
I see you have never heard of the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Latin America.
“You forgot possibility #3, which is–
The nationalists failing, the ultranationalists failing, and the replacement population marginalizing both.
I’m certain there are more scenarios than the three we collectively proposed, but that’s because I truly have no dog in this fight, rather than saying I don’t but secretly skewing my expectations toward the team that I like.”
You’re definitely skewing your expectations towards the team you prefer. The likelihood of the rage and anger not leading to an unceremonious expulsion is quite slim. Europe plays by different rules than America and they’ve done this numerous times.
“If you’re going to try to slander me,”
Trust me, he’s gonna, Mike T.
“I think implicit in all of HBD-sphere’s talk of NAM’s (non Asian minorities) is the hope that Asian immigrants will solve all of whites’ problems, and naively assumes Asians will not have agendas of their own.”
Yeah, HBDers are pretty idiotic. Asians are definitely smart enough to plan out and have there own agenda.
Japanese are the sort of Asian that I would expect to be most able to assimilate fully due to their race-soul (h/t to Mark Citadel for bringing up Spenglerian/Yockeyian concepts) having some similarities to the Western one.
“Races (in the modern sense of color: white, black, yellow, and red) are simply such large groupings that nobody REALLY identifies primarily with them.”
Race is not color. “White” basically means “a Caucasoid of all or mostly European descent”. Race is determined by physical phenomena that is literally more than skin-deep while ethnicity is basically culture with some racial underpinnings.
“We identify primarily with racial groupings within our ethnicity. White Nationalism, African Americanism, and etc. is nonsense because nobody can relate to such a universal scale on the basis of pure biology. Religion (an aspect of ethnicity) is much more effective.”
Religion, depending on the religion, can be far more universal than biology.
Also, African Americans are an ethnicity. Ethnogenesis can work in two ways: one ethnicity can develop into multiple or several ethnicities can merge into one.
Europe plays by different rules than America and they’ve done this numerous times.
And the odds that a disorganized minority with no real access to the machinery of the state could rise up, destroy the state and enslave the majority is rather slim. There is also the fact that Eastern Europe is starting to rearm; Poland just announced that it will increase its standing army from 100k troops to 150k troops and just as importantly, they are ramping up spending to meet NATO targets in the very near future.
Let’s suppose all of the flavors of nationalists in Germany rose up and were defeated by a slim(ish) margin by the Muslims. The Poles and the Russians would not take that lying down.
I got into a facebook fight a while back with some leftists who were saying that the white race was an invention used to oppress minorities and was expanded when convenient. The Irish, they said, in America at first didn’t qualify as “White” but were later included as “White” for political reasons or something. Actually, I think they were saying that the concept of race itself was invented for the oppression of minorities. I reflexively argued that White basically means European. So classical music is a White thing, also forms of poetry like the sonnet because you have Aryans and Irish and whatever Italians are, etc. all doing it. But you don’t have Indians or Orientals doing it.
Patrick:
One of the ironies of the whole situation is that white people are clearly the most liberal of all the races. Pound for pound, square inch for square inch, white flesh encloses more liberal tolerance than all other races of flesh combined.
So the situation is very nearly the opposite of the “whites are anti-liberal racists” narrative. Whites are the race of militantly tolerant liberals.
Part of what follows though is that the enemies of those of us who oppose liberalism – on the grounds that it is an insane incoherent lie – are mostly white. Nonwhites make great cultural and literal cannon fodder for white liberals, but pound for pound they are less liberal than white people. The irony is so acute it is difficult to believe that it wasn’t invented by some evil genius satirist.
Liberalism doesn’t make much sense outside of Christian culture, and until the last 200-300 years, the vast majority of Christians left after the expansion of Islam were European. So it makes sense that a socio-political system derived from a bad reading of Christianity would have its strongest hold in the largest Christian bloc. Non-white Christians simply don’t have the cultural soil for it to plant as thoroughly–yet.
Mike T:
Liberalism doesn’t make much sense outside of Christian culture,
Liberalism doesn’t make sense, period; and it destroys its host.
Liberalism has never found fertile ground outside of Christian societies in or descended from Europe. That would suggest that it is a system that depends on Christianity to even make sense to people on more than a superficial level. By that I mean liberalism really doesn’t exist in places like Africa and much of Asia the way it does here. It may be an influence, but it is not a reigning system there the way it is here. That’s especially true where Islam is the mainstream religion.
It would be an interesting exercise to figure out precisely how much liberalism informs the values of even most “tradcons” today. For example, I think the very concepts of mercy and justice as understood by even much of the right are probably one some level very strongly influenced by liberalism.
I am personally hesitant to accept as valid any moral statement made by religious leaders today that would not be recognized as more or less true 500 or more years ago. A society that can in various factions enthusiastically embrace or reluctantly accept the slaughter of children is such that I would never trust literally any moral statement is leaders make as binding except where they seem to be something that our distant forebears would embrace.
Liberalism has never found fertile ground outside of Christian societies in or descended from Europe. That would suggest that it is a system that depends on Christianity to even make sense to people on more than a superficial level.
It seems prima facie obvious to me that is because the idolatry of Liberté, Égalité and Fraternité grew from the elevated status these ideals had in Christianity, (ie the freedom in Christ, the equality of all people before God qua condemned sinners and the radical new family of the Church).
GJ:
A somewhat different take is that liberalism arose because many Christians sought rationalizations for rejecting Church authority, at least in part because of the human decadence of many actual clerics. Liberalism has all of the basic features of rationalization: a kind of surface plausibility, equivocal slogans, with rational incoherence underneath which makes it malleable to the will so it “implies” whatever liberals expect it to imply.
My ancestors fought in the Hapsburgian military, Svar.
My point is that you can’t ever make a longer-term peace with Muslims because their main purpose is your complete irradication or subjugation. Their brains are not like dumbed-down versions of ours, where we can appeal to their humanity by “talking real slow”. They’re on a completely different wavelength, regardless of intellect. Even if they sue for peace, they’re just buying time. Always.
It’s horrific and more than our Christianized minds can deal with. So we just pretend like it isn’t true.
Alte, Christianized minds of modernity are nothing like those of the past.
You mean the modern mind.
The real issue isn’t the nature of Muslims. It’s the nature of those who now rule the West. That’s what the average Westerner, Christian or not, can’t deal with. At all.
Zippy:
That may certainly be a more accurate description of the origins of the philosophy. But that doesn’t fully explain why many (if not most) societies that were never Christian have not embraced liberalism despite them having their own challenges to authorities, and liberalism’s convenient rationalising power.
The best explanation I see is the inference that Christianity has been necessary to develop appreciation of the triplet goods (Liberté, Égalité , Fraternité) before they develop into full-blown idols.
“My ancestors fought in the Hapsburgian military, Svar.”
I don’t see what that has anything to with anything we’re talking about here. Some are Gullahs, some fought in the Hapsburgian military, why don’t you tell us about which ones landed on the moon back in ’69?
“My point is that you can’t ever make a longer-term peace with Muslims because their main purpose is your complete irradication or subjugation. Their brains are not like dumbed-down versions of ours, where we can appeal to their humanity by “talking real slow”. They’re on a completely different wavelength, regardless of intellect. Even if they sue for peace, they’re just buying time. Always.
It’s horrific and more than our Christianized minds can deal with. So we just pretend like it isn’t true.”
Uh…. It’s not the Christianization of our minds, it’s the Cultural Marxization of our minds. Christianity is not about coddling faggots and camel jockeys, the great Christian tradition starts with the incendiary fire of Christ and runs through to men like Fr. Torquemada, Charles Martel, St. Joan of Arc and yes, even Vlad the Impaler (if only the victims of clerical abuse would follow his lead as a former rape victim and do what the Church hierarchy refuses to do).
Regardless, even though I agree with you on Muslims, but your contention that Christianity is going make things just alright between disparate ethnic groups is blatantly false. Recent events have shown otherwise.
“Zippy:
That may certainly be a more accurate description of the origins of the philosophy. But that doesn’t fully explain why many (if not most) societies that were never Christian have not embraced liberalism despite them having their own challenges to authorities, and liberalism’s convenient rationalising power.
The best explanation I see is the inference that Christianity has been necessary to develop appreciation of the triplet goods (Liberté, Égalité , Fraternité) before they develop into full-blown idols.”
Cultural Marxism is a Gnostic Christian heresy, that’s why. Liberalism can never work in a proto-Nietszchean heathen world since the heathens would laugh at any of the ridiculous arguments that the CM’s push.
The heresy is based on the warping of the Christian notion of compassion all the way to the point of transvaluation of values while discarding all other Christian values.
“Alte, Christianized minds of modernity are nothing like those of the past.
You mean the modern mind.”
Ah, I see you already addressed this.
“The real issue isn’t the nature of Muslims. It’s the nature of those who now rule the West. That’s what the average Westerner, Christian or not, can’t deal with. At all.”
Exactly. Muslims gonna muslim but we could brutally crush them underneath our heel just like Uncle Assad in Syria’s doing if it weren’t for the traitorous scum amongst us and above us who refuse to do what’s necessary.
“I got into a facebook fight a while back with some leftists who were saying that the white race was an invention used to oppress minorities and was expanded when convenient. The Irish, they said, in America at first didn’t qualify as “White” but were later included as “White” for political reasons or something.”
I remember Thomas Fleming of Chronicles saying something about how this is somewhat true since the English, for some reason, saw the Irish as a non-European aboriginal race which Fleming found to be preposterous due to how the Irish are one of the most Nordic groups in Europe besides Scandis.
“Actually, I think they were saying that the concept of race itself was invented for the oppression of minorities.”
How would the concept of “minorities” be real if “race” isn’t real?
“I reflexively argued that White basically means European. So classical music is a White thing, also forms of poetry like the sonnet because you have Aryans and Irish and whatever Italians are, etc. all doing it. But you don’t have Indians or Orientals doing it.”
LOL, regarding Orientals (are you British by chance?) and Classical Music, they are really into the whole thing.
[…] is almost exactly the opposite of the truth. The actual reality is that white flesh encloses vastly more militantly tolerant political liberalism than all other races of fl…. Other races make great cultural and actual cannon fodder for white liberals. But the white […]
Bruce: Sorry for the late reply. Auster wrote:
“And the worst thing about white nationalism, in my opinion, is just that it’s nationalism. Nationalism is really another word for democracy”
“LOL, regarding Orientals (are you British by chance?) and Classical Music, they are really into the whole thing.”
No, I’m American and possibly German. Orientals who play violins, etc. are just trying to co-opt and appropriate White Culture. It’s a complete macroaggression.
Why do white people see themselves as ethnically illegitimate?
Because our leaders are against us.
Axismundi:
The idea that it is only our leaders or some group of conspirators or the Frankfurt School or the Jews who are destroying us is one of those ridiculously counterfactual things that people with a conservative disposition have been telling themselves for centuries, all while actively burning down their own house.
The 0.1% of the population which is legitimately reactionary is itself almost entirely composed of people who remain in thrall to many of modernity’s lies.
Cultural Marxism is a Gnostic Christian heresy, that’s why. Liberalism can never work in a proto-Nietszchean heathen world since the heathens would laugh at any of the ridiculous arguments that the CM’s push.
I’m not just talking about the latest variants of the Égalité + Fraternité blend but liberalism in general which includes classical liberalism. And the reason why that doesn’t compute to just about every other culture isn’t because of a strong rooting in compassion.
Zippy,
I never said ‘only’. Our leaders being so oddly against us is definitely a cause, though. Convince me with samples around the world of which countries behave so bizarrely.
Look by contrast at Russia now. Or anywhere else in the world. China is pro-Han Chinese, Arabia pro-Arab, Israel pro-Jew, yet Europeans are to never mentioned except in ferocious – hateful, in fact – dismissal of ethno-national interest.
To simply say the problem is liberalism is far too abstract. I can’t see how classical liberalism under the Aristocracy was a problem.
I think you are putting too much primacy on ideas and not enough on types of people.
Axismundi:
People always think that it is possible to keep a nice tame liberalism as a pet. Once you fully grasp what liberalism is, it becomes obvious why this cannot work. The fact that it has never actually worked out in reality, and that the belief that it can distorts folks’ thoughts on other matters, is consistent with the intellectual conclusion that it cannot work.
Which is more powerful, race or ideas? Did Communism colonize Chinese thought, or did Chinese thought colonize Communism? I suppose it is an empirical question.
But whatever the answer, false and horrifically destructive ideas remain false and horribly destructive, whatever other forces happen to be at work.
Our leaders being so oddly against us is definitely a cause, though. Convince me with samples around the world of which countries behave so bizarrely.
It is a political truism that just about all political leaders primarily seek their own self-interest. Anti-nationalism is one such convenient means due to the strength of Fraternité, the third head of liberalism(Zippy counts Liberté and Égalité while I add the third), precisely in the region where liberalism has proliferated**, ie. Western Europe. In contrast, nationalism is currently promoted in Eastern European nations such as Hungary and Poland where liberalism has never taken deep roots. In general, normal* non-liberal societies do not embrace Fraternité and therefore we see the normal promotion of nationalism by political leaders.
* in the statistical sense
** meaning the progression of prominence of the members of the unholy trinity: first Liberté in the form of suffrage and the overthrowing of monarchies, then Égalité in the form of Marxism/socialism and feminism, then Fraternité in the multiculturalism and open borders associated with the EU.
GJ:
Just to clarify, I do (and have always, since I started writing on the subject) include the distinction between the free and equal superman and the less than human oppressor-untermensch as a concomitant of liberalism, in my various accounts of liberalism.
Just as equality is entailed by liberty, fraternity (an inclusiveness which entails the dehumanization of anyone who oppressively screws up liberalism) is entailed by both in a kind of unholy trinity.
Just as equality is entailed by liberty, fraternity (an inclusiveness which entails the dehumanization of anyone who oppressively screws up liberalism) is entailed by both in a kind of unholy trinity.
Filioque!
Zippy:
Just to clarify, I do (and have always, since I started writing on the subject) include the distinction between the free and equal superman and the less than human oppressor-untermensch as a concomitant of liberalism, in my various accounts of liberalism.
My apologies for the misrepresentation; I guess I haven’t read all your important posts yet. In any case it was reading your posts that broke me free from liberalism, so I take no credit.
GJ:
Precisely. Liberty (autonomy) begets equality, and the superman proceeds from liberty and equality.
GJ:
Don’t sweat it. FWIW I’ve been pointing out liberalism’s entailment of a less-than-human oppressor vs the superman for some time. (I commented as “Matt” in the early days of VFR).
Speaking of violence against abortionists, can we get a post on that? There was a recent incidence. Unless you’ve already written on it.
Marissa:
I don’t have a fully worked out exposition and I am not familiar with the incident.
Violence initiated by private individuals would have to fall under a self-defense type analysis.
Of course the sovereign ought to treat abortion as murder, and prohibit/prosecute/punish it pretty much the same way it does murder, including conspiracy on the part of formally cooperating parties, etc.
Armed rebellion is subject to very strict conditions, and while I don’t have a pat answer as to precisely when and under what circumstances (and for whom) it becomes obligatory w.r.t the abortion holocaust it is obvious that injustices related to immigration have a long, long, long way to go before they would be in anywhere near the same moral universe. So anyone who is not already in violent rebellion over abortion policy has not even the tiniest leg to stand on in advocating for violent rebellion over immigration policy.
The latter sort of advocacy as anything but a little “oh, and by the way” add-on to the former is a certain indication that the advocate has upside-down moral priorities, even if we stipulate that the time for violent rebellion is at hand.
Violence initiated by private individuals would have to fall under a self-defense type analysis.
Let’s use a Game of Thrones example here so we don’t get anyone going “ERMUHGERD! Did dey juz say dat itz ok” at us on this topic…
Suppose a man like Ramsey Bolton*, a notorious and monstrous psychopath, is known to the authorities. They tolerate him raping and murdering ordinary, innocent people and refuse to use the just powers of their titles/offices to enforce the law to put an end to his wanton destruction of the common good.
At what point does the community gain a right of vendetta to pursue the man and put him down irrespective of matters of authority and legitimacy to pursue the action?
* For anyone who hasn’t followed GoT, Bolton is a man who makes Charles Manson look like a stunning conversationalist and all around pleasant dinner party guest.
Mike T:
The fact that you cannot abide discussions of authority and its bounds without crying “but what about abuse by Really Bad abusing abusey abusers !!!” tells us something about you, but it doesn’t really add to the discussion substantively.
(I’m now half-expecting an accusation of advocating violence based on that question under the assumption it was a leading question, not merely a hypothetical, serious question)
[…] and never has been. That isn’t to downplay it — for all I know my ambivalence has been bred out of me and is a bad thing. I’ll never be a friend of white nationalists or white supremacists […]
I am unconvinced by your arguments for the primacy of liberalism as the death dealer. This feels like wandering into interesting but spacey mental territory.
Not being a liberal, though sympathetic to a classic liberalism as done by the right sorts of people (which rejects blank slatism), I find it hard to discuss without feeling I’m boxed into defending liberalism.
Nonetheless, it’s really not ideology. Types of people create ideologies. First causes.
Zippy, I think that you are an intellectual, and intellectuals are a type who naturally think ideas matter more than they do, that they are primary instead of secondary and in fact epiphenomenal.
The arrays of certain types of people account better for everything so far discussed.
That plus prevailing systems, such as our economic system, churn out ideologies for the usual purpose:
Ideologies are typically a set of arguments to legitimate power for the types of people who rule.
Axismundi:
Some folks do try to disqualify what I say by suggesting that I have my head in the clouds. As a pointy-headed intellectual I ought to point out that that is an ad hominem.
But instead I’ll ask, if ideas are just epiphenomena then what should I think of the idea that ideas are just epiphenomena? Is your genetic makeup causing you to assert that as a territorial defense against my rhetorical power play?
If I believed that I’d have to believe that religion is just an epiphenomenon of race, and reason is nothing more than a rationalization engine to help people justify their actions. Of course if that were the case one wonders just what kind of justification is meaningful in such a relativistic context, and indeed what ‘meaningful’ even, um, means.
But you’ve probably accurately identified where our views differ. It is a postmodern conceit that religion and even physical science is just rationalization for the assertion of power.
[…] Also relevant […]
[…] – at least not yet – under a system which is not ruled by a majority of white people capable of overruling dindu, la raza, and mohammedan […]
[…] whites into a racially conscious tribe though. It is entirely possible that racial hatred has simply been bred out of most of us. Anti-racism was our creed in the first place. It would take generations to inbreed it back out […]