Jared Taylor’s White IdentityGreg Johnson
White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century
Oakton, Va.: New Century Books, 2011
Reading through Jared Taylor’s splendid new book White Identity, I found myself thinking again and again of Allan Bloom’s 1987 book The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students. In content, the books could hardly be more different, even though both take aim at reigning liberal illusions. But The Closing of the American Mind surprised everyone by becoming a best-seller, in spite of its intellectually challenging style and serious, politically incorrect message. White Identity is a similarly weighty and sobering book, and if America has any hope of survival, it should enjoy a similar popularity.
The aim of White Identity is to convince intelligent whites that racial “integration” and “diversity” are not sources of strength and enrichment but of inevitable conflict and suffering, because racial consciousness and preferring one’s own race over others are rooted in human nature. Thus they cannot be eradicated, and they can be ignored only at one’s own risk. Whites, however, have made a cult of ignoring and suppressing their racial consciousness, based on the belief that white “racism” (and only white racism) is the source of racial conflict and the suffering and backwardness of other races. Thus the eradication of white racism (and only white racism) will be sufficient to create a society in which all the different races and cultures can mingle in an atmosphere of tolerance and harmony.
Taylor’s audience and source materials are primarily American, but his lessons apply to all white nations where such notions have become prevalent since the Second World War.
The first three chapters of White Identity, “The Failure of Integration,” “The Myth of Diversity—Institutions,” and “The Myth of Diversity—Daily Life” offer an overwhelming factual and logical refutation of the ideas that racial integration, diversity, and multiculturalism are possible to achieve, or good for society even if they could be achieved.
The fourth chapter, “The Science of Human Nature,” offers a masterfully clear and concise summary of the scientific explanation for why racial integration and diversity will inevitably fail. I think that Taylor is wise to focus here entirely on “Genetic Similarity Theory,” which explains the universality of consciousness of genetic similarity and difference (race being one such difference) and preference for those who are genetically similar over those who are genetically different.
In short, Taylor deals with the science of racial difference, not the science of racial inequality. Even if the races were all equal in their genetic capacities, they would still be different, aware of those differences, and inclined to prefer their own over strangers. Taylor thereby sidesteps making invidious comparisons among the races, as well as the dead end of cognitive elitism, which is different from and incompatible with racial nationalism. (Cognitive elitists love intelligence, not their race, which contains dumb as well as smart people.)
Chapters five, six, and seven—“Black Racial Consciousness,” “Hispanic Consciousness,” and “Asian Consciousness”—deal with the robust racial consciousness of America’s three principal non-white groups. Reading these chapters will be a very depressing experience for white liberals, because the inevitable conclusion is that no matter how hard they strive to see the world from a race-blind, universal perspective, non-whites will simply not reciprocate. Thus the white liberal dream of a post-racial world will founder on the rock of non-white racial consciousness, which if anything is only growing stronger as American society becomes more diverse (something that would be predicted by Genetic Similarity Theory). It is another masterstroke to construct an argument for the suicidal futility of multiculturalism on the foundation of reciprocity, a value that deeply resonates with all whites.
Chapter eight, “White Racial Consciousness,” deals with the downfall of white racial consciousness in America. Throughout most of American history, up until the 1950s and 1960s, white racial consciousness was perfectly healthy, meaning that it was in keeping with human nature and the requirements for long-term racial and cultural survival and flourishing. Taylor sums up this consciousness as follows:
White Americans believed race was a fundamental aspect of individual and group identity. They believed people of different races differed in temperament, ability, and the kind of societies they built. They wanted America to be peopled by Europeans, and thought only people of European stock could maintain the civilization they valued. They therefore considered immigration of non-whites a threat to whites and to their civilization. It was common to regard the presence of non-whites as a burden, and to argue that if they could not be removed from the country they should be separated from whites socially and politically. Whites were strongly opposed to miscegenation, which they called “amalgamation.”
Taylor summarizes the post-World War II consensus about race as follows:
Race is an insignificant matter and not a valid criterion for any purpose—except perhaps for redressing wrongs done to non-whites. The races are equal in every respect and are therefore interchangeable. It thus makes no difference if a neighborhood or nation becomes non-white or if white children marry outside their race. Whites have no valid group interests, so it is illegitimate for them to attempt to organize as whites. Given the past crimes of whites, any expression of racial pride is wrong. The displacement of whites by non-whites through immigration will strengthen the United States. These are matters on which there is little ground for disagreement; anyone who holds differing views is not merely mistaken but morally suspect.
The fatal flaw of the present consensus is that only white people have become so deracinated, and if abandoning racial consciousness is not reciprocated by other races, then it is akin to unilateral disarmament in the face of hostile, armed enemies. That will not lead to a tolerant, multicultural utopia, but to civil war—hot or cold—in which selfish, race-wise groups out to serve their own interests at the expense of one another and America as a whole will strip whites to the bone. If whites refuse to take our own side in this struggle, we will lose our wealth, our power, our culture, our country, and ultimately our future as we deliver our destiny into the hands of people who hate us for our strengths and despise us for our weakness. It is a path to white dispossession and, ultimately, to white extinction. It is a process that is already well underway, as Taylor demonstrates in his long and depressing final chapter, “The Crisis We Face.”
I have two main criticisms of White Identity.
First, and foremost, although White Identity is beautifully written and constructs a crushing case for its theses through ingenious arguments and a vast array of carefully chosen facts, its conclusions are ultimately rather unambitious. In Taylor’s words:
This book will have been a success if at least a few readers have become open to the possibility that the following statements are true: People of all races generally prefer the company of people like themselves. Racial diversity is a source of conflict, not strength. Non-whites, especially blacks and Hispanics, nurture a strong sense of racial pride and solidarity. Whites have little sense of racial solidarity, and most whites strongly condemn any signs of it. Immigration from non-European countries is changing the United States in profound ways, many of which whites find disagreeable. To the extent that these statements are true, they have serious implications both for the country as a whole and for whites as a group.
Taylor succeeds in these aims, but I suspect that for most readers, the overall effect of this book will be despair and inaction. For Taylor offers only the most tepid of practical recommendations: “Clearly our immigration policies should be reexamined.” Or the book’s final words: “Only whites have no racial identity, are constantly on the defensive, and constantly in retreat. They have a choice: regain a sense of identity and the resolve to maintain their numbers, their traditions, and their way of life—or face oblivion.”
The trouble is that Taylor gives no indication of what, precisely, whites need to do to save ourselves, or any indication that it is even possible at this stage. And without a specific and appealing vision of an alternative and some indication of how we might get from here to there, most readers will sensibly conclude that the white race is doomed.
Of course, Taylor may be betting that leaving these matters open will be less discouraging than leveling with people about the harsh and terrible measures necessary to save us. For instance, halting all non-white immigration will slow but not halt our demographic eclipse, since the non-whites who are already here are outbreeding us handily. And do we really want to live in a constant breeding race until the natural world is completely despoiled? The white race has a future in North America only if we can separate ourselves from more than 100 million non-whites, for example through expulsion or territorial partition.
Yes, the book is long enough already, but even a few historical examples of conquered and colonized white peoples who have regained control of their destinies—the Irish, the Spanish, the Russians—would be enough to convince people that all is not lost.
Second, Taylor’s chapter on “White Racial Consciousness” offers nary a clue as to how in the last fifty years or so, healthy white racial consciousness around the globe has become almost completely perverted, setting our race on the path to extinction. But if racial consciousness is so soundly rooted in nature, how can something so contrary to nature even take place? The explanation is to be found in the work of Kevin MacDonald, particularly The Culture of Critique and Cultural Insurrections: white ethnocentrism, and only white ethnocentrism, has been pathologized by the organized Jewish community as a tool of ethnic warfare against whites. Without the perspective afforded by MacDonald’s work, the shift Taylor chronicles is ultimately mysterious and may give rise to the mistaken view that the white race has essentially been seized by a suicidal impulse.
Still, even with these caveats, White Identity is an important contribution to white survival. It will be particularly effective as a tool for opening the eyes of white liberals and skittish conservatives who can’t yet handle too much truth in one book. But ultimately White Identity is a propaedeutic or introductory book to White Nationalism, which avoids the most uncomfortable yet necessary topics.
Now that White Identity has been launched, I hope Jared Taylor will consider turning his attention to the harder questions, discomfiting though they may be. We certainly need his talents. Jared Taylor turns 60 this year, so surely he has the time. But consider this: Sam Francis was only 57 when he died in 2005. We are in a race against time, all of us.
Sam Francis’ untimely death contains a lesson for us all. Sam knew far more than would say, because he wished to conserve his credibility and audience in anticipation of the day when he would write his magnum opus. But he died before he could spend any of that credibility he saved so carefully.
At a certain point, one has to ask: What are we saving ourselves for? Our race is dying, and those few of us who know this need to stop saving ourselves and start spending ourselves, secure in the knowledge that anything we save will be taken from us by death in the end.
You can buy White Identity here: http://www.amren.com/store/white-identity.html
Football’s Race War
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 534 Interview with Alexander Adams
Notes on Strauss & Husserl
The Honorable Cause: A Review
George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years
Remembering Oswald Spengler (May 29, 1880-May 8, 1936)
Remembering Louis-Ferdinand Céline (May 27, 1894–July 1, 1961)
With a cover like this, who would resist to get this book?
I’m looking forward to check this excellent piece of work.
Pretty famous german painting actually: “Der Wanderer über dem Nebelmeer” by Caspar David Friedrich
I think you make a very important point at the end, Greg. Our people have a marked tendency to procrastinate. I know many people, including myself on occasion, who say that they’re not ready to undertake a particular goal yet, because once the one thing in their lives that’s preventing them from doing so is resolved, THEN they will commit wholeheartedly. And then their goal continually recedes until they get so wrapped up in other things and lose interest in that goal, sometimes justifying it in their minds by saying that the cause or goal itself turned out to be valueless. This is also noticeable on the social level, where Western society has been ignoring its massive problems for decades (environmental degradation, immigration, cultural and spiritual decay, etc.) in the belief that somehow they will just work themselves out on their own. There is much to be said for preparation, but action on some level is always necessary to keep oneself in a state of readiness.
There is the well known parable of the three inheritors. They have to give back a large sum of money unduly received. Not easy. The argument of the first one was : O.K., no problem, but not now, later. The argument of the second one was : Everything you ask, but not this. The third one – this has little relevance here – gave back his share in the knowledge that it only ever belonged to God.
The two first attitudes are very common and usually allow one to sum up his interlocutor. The problem with doing systematically what is right is that it usually leads to one form or other of martyrdom.
This is a great review. It captures everything that is powerful about this book. In my view, it’s a mistake to view this as a political book; it’s more sociological, in that it doesn’t offer solutions or calls to arms, just describes the situation. And that situation is that the races are different, and self-segregating, and that along with other factors suggests “diversity” is a path to total failure. More people should read this.
Is there a chapter on capitalism in the book? Lol.
This is key:
I can’t count how often I’ve come across the mendacious argument, made by Jewish apologists and their useful idiots, that the white race “did it to ourselves.” What garbage. That’s like blaming the man who loses a bar brawl that his bruises, battered into him by his opponent, are injuries that he inflicted on himself (!). Talk about a recipe for inaction and suicide.
Mr. Johnson’s point-two criticism of the book is also the root of the point-one criticism. By avoiding naming the enemy who destroyed white racial consciousness in the first place and keeps it from reemerging, Taylor leaves himself incapable of completing his analysis and determining the way forward.
@ the mendacious argument, made by Jewish apologists and their useful idiots, that the white race “did it to ourselves.”
I don’t wan to cast shadows on the role of the Jews, but placing the whole burden of guilt upon them? Surely you cannot blame Jews for the French Revolution and the American Civil war: the historical antecedents of today’s PC.
And how would you respond to counter-jihadists, that the Jews didn’t create Eurabia; that Europe’s white oligarchs did (see e.g., how they challenged me here on the JQ)?
Even Mark Steyn, a Jew, when he appeared on the Michael Coren program, admitted that the reason why Eurabia has happened is because of the leveraging of Holocaust guilt, which has undermined European self-confidence.
If it hadn’t been for the Jews exploiting the Holocaust trope, Europeans would never have permitted the influx of Muslims and their culture.
OK, but both of Steyn’s grandmothers were Catholic, not Jewish.
Watch from 9:50 onwards. I disagree with Steyn that the Muslims have been “the principal beneficiaries of Holocaust guilt,” but his point that it is principally because of the Holocaust guilt campaign, orchestrated and maintained by the Jews, that Europe is being overrun by Muslims (because Holocaust guilt has marginalized European self-identity and racial self-assertion since 1945), is irrefutable:
Nevertheless, the principal beneficiaries of the Holocaust guilt campaign have indeed been the Jews, because their goal has always been the eradication of Northern European culture, and indeed the Northern European race.
Chechar: “And how would you respond to counter-jihadists, that the Jews didn’t create Eurabia”
The Jews are the main force behind our race-replacement. Please remember that you had a sudden revelation one or two years ago, and that you now run a judeo-critical website.
So, if you need a brief sum-up of what Jews are doing to promote race-replacement, you should simply make a short summary of the articles on your own website. Afterwards, you can use that on internet forums and in real conversation.
The counter-jihadists are a good example of Jewish mischief. It is a mostly Jewish movement, and they are supposed to be anti-islam. Even so, they like the idea of a proposition nation, and they want more third-world immigration to white countries, but not to Israel. And they don’t want the Jewish responsibility to be discussed.
Their nonsense about Eurabia is getting pesky. In fact, we should complain about Eurafrica. Black Africans are going to be more of a problem than the Arabs. They are more violent, and there are more and more of them everyday.
That I am an anti-Jew warrior is easily demonstrated by pointing out to what I have just said today at Jihad Watch. Everybody was celebrating Israel’s anniversary there and a couple of my posts surely tasted to them like a fly in the cake (here). I don’t need to reread the collection of the articles in my blog to know what I know.
Still, I think it is legitimate to respond, if possible, to the challenge that the counter-jihadists shoved to my nose in another thread, linked above: that since (1) the French Revolution caused much postmodern, PC mischief, and that (2) since Jews were uninvolved in the most catastrophic war within the States, the Civil War, something escapes a strict interpretation of MacDonald’s model.
I don’t believe it’s unreasonable to ponder into a possible twofold etiology of the West malaise: suicide and homicide. However, since I am still ignorant of much of American history, I will repeat here a question that remained unanswered in another CC thread: Anybody knows a book that explains the unexplainable, why Americans unaided by Jews wasted a holocaust of white blood to liberate the Negro in 1861?
In his mission to create a new Jerusalem the Yankee faithfully replicated every Jewish vice, the Talmudic legalism, the fanaticism to “repair the world”, and the ruthless, single minded pursuit of power.
Puritanism is Judaism in whiteface.
Brilliant observation, you described the US and the so-called “American spirit” in a nutshell.
Yes, the role of the Jews needs to be explored and discussed, but we shouldn’t hyperfixate on it to the extent it becomes a caricature of itself.
Continually pointing out that Jews have been waging relentless ethnic war on Whites begs the question on a number of crucial issues:
1) How Jews were able to insinuate themselves into the positions necessary to wage war in the first place (Whites allowed them to in every institution in which Jews wield power).
2) Why White elites have enthusiastically helped Jews implement the most crucial and destructive elements of the Jewish agenda (Federal Reserve Act, American entry into ww1 and ww2, the immigration act of 1965, Civil Rights, desegregation, etc. and that’s just in an American context).
3) Why Whites are so uniquely susceptible to the Jews’ particular con when other races are not.
And furthermore, as I stated above we cannot blame Jews for the French Revolution and the American Civil war. There’s something wrong in the white psyche that allowed these things in the first place.
Chechar: “And furthermore, as I stated above we cannot blame Jews for the French Revolution and the American Civil war. There’s something wrong in the white psyche that allowed these things in the first place.”
There must be something wrong with the Chinese too for letting the cultural revolution happen.
The French Revolution was violent and destructive, but it didn’t advocate race-replacement. This is because there were very few Jews in France at the time. And they didn’t own the political parties, the television stations and the courts of justice.
But some intellectuals view the Revolution’s egalitarian dogma as the seed of the baobab that, like in the Antoine de Saint-Exupéry tale, if not plucked as a tiny tree it would later grow and make the The Little Prince’s planet explode. As far as I know the egalitarian dogma was not plucked from the Earth when we gentiles were still in charge.
That comment is an example of begging the question on how Jews got into those positions in the first place. Clearly, when Jews started arriving in America in the late 1880s and integrating themselves into White society, the Whites at the time either didn’t understand the threat Jews posed, or they understood it and didn’t care, because instead of sending every Jew back where he came from, Americans let them buy up the banks and newspapers.
Jews arrived in the late 1880s and by the 1900s, a mere 20 years later, Senator Aldrich from Rhode Island was working with that Jew banker Paul Warburg to lay the intellectual and political foundation for the Federal Reserve Act. By the 1910s, Jews had enough influence to steer Woodrow Wilson into WW1. By the 1920s, Jews controlled American media with the exception of Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent. By the 1930s, Jews were in a position to destroy heroes like Henry Ford, Father Coughlin and Charles Lindberg and to steer the US into WW2. All of those things are true, but it’s also true that Jews had cooperation and indispensable help from Whites every step of the way.
Paul Warburg essentially designed the entire US Federal Reserve system, but it was Senator Nelson Aldrich and President Woodrow Wilson who made the Federal Reserve Act the law of the land. From the 1880s until today, there has in fact not been a single plank of the Jewish political agenda that was not brought into legal existence by White political leaders without guns to their heads. I challenge anyone to name one.
The problem isn’t just Jews; it’s Jews and the Whites who cooperate with them and some kind of spiritual, psychic or genetic deficiency in Whites that make them tolerate the abuse.
I recommend Dr. Revilo Oliver’s great speeches “What We Owe Our Parasites” and “Conspiracy or Degeneracy” for answers to the three questions/comments you raised and for an understanding of how the white race arrived at its current predicament. He describes several elements of our peculiar racial mentality that causes us to foolishly project our noble values onto other racial groups and that make us prone to the wiles of Jews and gentile liberals alike with their propaganda of a raceless, warless, world utopia.
Theses speeches are as relevant today as they were in the 1960’s. You should easily be able to locate them on the Revilo P. Oliver web site.
That “we let it happen to us” is as bad as “they did it to us.” Both statements are true.
The short answer is metapolitical: they have a disciplined, metapolitical, intergenerational focus; we chose hedonism over discipline.
The correct answer is a question: “What Do We DO About It?”
Elsewhere, I defended Sam Francis as trapped in, and betrayed by, Institutional Conservatism. The Solution, in my alternative history scenario, had Sam abandon the Illusion of Middle-Class Respectability, and help form the institutions that led to the Northwest Republic.
What’s In YOUR Future?
I just finished reading the book. Greg Johnson’s review does it justice.
>But if racial consciousness is so soundly rooted in nature, how can something so contrary to nature even take place?
Taylor does not discuss why white America – and the West in general – seems hell-bent on national suicide. Pat Buchanan also pretty much avoids this question.
Have you ever talked to either one of them off the record? Both of them are quite familiar with MacDonald’s works and understand that there’s a Jewish connection, but publicly – for the most part – avoid discussing the role of organized Jewish political power in the ongoing crisis of white survival. Taylor touched on it briefly in an interview with James Edwards on the radio show “The Political Cesspool,” and acknowledged that it is a legitimate inquiry. He also acknowledged that such questions were simple beyond the scope of his book.
The JQ is complex and is worthy of serious scholarly treatment. If a patriotic white American read Taylor’s latest book with an open mind, he’s going to be damned upset. He will invariably begin to wonder who has been behind “immigration reform,” open borders, victim disarmament laws, anti-white discrimination laws, political correctness, laws against “hate speech,” the cultural sewage that spews forth from Hollywood, the grip of the Federal Reserve, and the like. Eventually such a person will find his way to Kevin MacDonald and begin to connect the dots.
I know this is true because it describes my own journey. If right off the bat someone had wanted to tell me his theory about “da jooz,” I would have rejected the entire message.
>The trouble is that Taylor gives no indication of what, precisely, whites need to do to save ourselves, or any indication that it is even possible at this stage.
Exactly my thoughts. It’s five minutes ’til midnight, and we don’t even have a map.
Having said that, I will still recommend this book to every open-minded white American I know.
It’s called the Northwest Republic, and, worst case, it is useful as an Analytical Model to describe what SHOULD be, in place of what is, and is getting worse.
For seventy years we have adopted the models and conceptions “suggested” to us by our Racial Enemy.
The results are the results “they” wanted; political entertainment, and not political (or personal) effectiveness.
Thinking for ourselves, on behalf of our Posterity, for a change, is quite challenging.
There’s no alternative.
What’s In YOUR Future?
Greg Johnson is correct when he writes,
“I have two main criticisms of White Identity. First, and foremost, although White Identity is beautifully written and constructs a crushing case for its theses through ingenious arguments and a vast array of carefully chosen facts, its conclusions are ultimately rather unambitious.”
Taylor’s book while highly informative is for the most part a compilation of condensed newspaper articles regarding mostlty juvenile school and prison racial confrontations with black and hispanic demagogue political charlatan quotes interspersed. I too found this book offering no clear vision for the future.
Many of the propositions and news items in this book one has read previously in American Rennaisance, with some new powerful colorful tidbits, this is a book that can awaken the typical GOP “dittohead” if placed in their possesion.
Case in point, as a typical GOP “dittohead” in college when Bob Barr was castigated for his past attendance at a CofCC conference, this was the first instance when I became truly aware of ‘Identity’ politics. I then learned of AR, Sam Franics and the broader white nationalist movement and its ideas.
This book will not likely to have a major effect on Counter Current readers, but can be for our movemnet if distributed among organizations such as Youth for Western Civilization and other generally civic nationalist organizations.
Beautifully put Greg.
Why worry? According to a large percentage of Americans, ‘Jesus’ is coming back to save
them! North America ( I include my home ‘Canada’ ) is a obese infantile day care center
waiting to be culled!
Most of the good blood has been bred out, we need another invasion of Vikings to kick start ‘The New Jerusalem’!
I have no doubt this is probably a very good book in some respects, but a study of our race’s current plight and looming dispossession simply isn’t complete without a discussion of the pivotal role that the Jews have played in our ongoing dispossession.
According to the American Renaissance narrative, white people, sometime in the 1960’s, suddenly and inexplicably decided to become stark raving liberals and self hating racial masochists – a trend that has continued to the present day. The reader is always left in the lurch as to the root causes for this sea change in world outlook among American whites and Europeans.
Most readers of this website already know that Jewish control of school curricula and the news and entertainment industries has led to a deliberate denaturing process and perversion of healthy racial and survival instincts in far too many people of European descent. That we continue to be ever so gracious hosts to this implacably hostile and parasitic people will lead only to our ultimate extinction.
The long awaited and hoped for spiritual rebirth among American whites will never be possible when American Jews are marshalling all their resources to prevent such an event.
“Puritanism is Judaism in whiteface.”
This literally couldn’t be more wrong and not understanding it is a big part of the problem.
Judaism is 100% ETHNO-centricity with no regard for the consequences.
Puritanism is 100% IDEAL-centricity with no regard for the consequences.
This was an excellent review of Taylor’s new book by Greg Johnson, and encapsulates the thoughts of most of the commentators here, myself included. The book is very good, despite some of the obvious shortcomings, and will prove itself beneficial to White Nationalism. The title is exceptional, and attention getting, especially for the newbies and fence sitters.
That being said, most of the comments here are also pretty good. I think that Chechar, Lew, J. Winthrop II and Dithers provided some perceptive ideas. Many of our racial woes are indeed self-inflicted [innate], yet undeniably, they are also egregiously compounded [inflicted] by hostile interlopers. Since the interlopers have usurped the system, and have most of the White population intellectually lobotomized, we are now reaping the whirlwind of our tomfoolery. Winthrop’s metaphor about “Puritanism is Judaism in whiteface” is priceless, as are Wandrin’s clarifications.
As one reads Taylor’s book the obfuscation in some paragraphs is unnecessary. Two minor examples.
First. When correctly pointing out that black degenerate Amiri Baraka, formerly known a Leroi Jones, was appointed NJ Poet Laurete in 2002 by disgraced homosexual Governor James McGreevey, Taylor does not mention that the post was abolished in 2003 because of Baraka’s anti-white and anti-semitic rants.
Second. Taylor’s chapter 8, White Racial Consciousness, Taylor writes,
“Congressman William N. Vaile of Colorado was a prominent supporter of the 1924 immigration legislation that was designed to keep the country majority white. He explained his reasons for opposing immigration from non-northern European sources.”
Which meant southern and eastern European countries. Taylor who is philo-semitic, now sloppily writes that Hungarians, Greeks, Italians, Russians, Estonians are not white? I do not think he believes this is the case, but the 1924 Immigration Restriction Act was spearheaded by Madison Grant to keep America predominately Nordic, not strictly majority “white”.
Benjamin Franklin had asserted in writing that Swedes and many Germans were “swarthy” therefore not white, “Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc. ”
A ridiculous statement, but that sentiment was the spirit of his times. Zeitgeist you may say. Is that a swarthy German word?
Comparing the pictures provided at the “Racial Reality” website, to available Ben Franklin portraits, reveal Franklin appearing like he may have more of that “swarthy” Alpine or Dinaric blood in him then he would likely admit to. Not a full Saxon as he claims. I guess his observations are as good as mine.
My suspicion is that most Nordic supremacists would prefer the so-called “swarthy” Greek Jennifer Aniston over the pure blood Mrs. Franklin.
I believe taylor is not a Nordic supremacist, but needs to clean up some of his paragraphs.
Wandrin says “Judaism is 100% ETHNO-centricity with no regard for the consequences.
Puritanism is 100% IDEAL-centricity with no regard for the consequences.”
Puritanism imposed Judeo ethno-ideals on Europeans. That’s why it never fit and quickly burnt itself out. But in every generation some Christians try to revive the jewish core of their religion, much to the discomfort of Europeans who find the whole thing alien and unsettling.
It’s a mistake to think of Jews as a simple ethnic criminal conspiracy like the Mafia. The Mafia just wants money. If the Jews were just ethnocentric they wouldn’t be that dangerous. Their ideals drive their totalitarian ambition. Tikkun Olam is global totalitarianism. The same totalitarianism expressed in Puritanism.
I think the Jews are exactly like the Mafia except in scale. The Mafia are the perfect example of small-scale clannishness. Their loyalty and morality extends to the border of their clan. Their sense of interest lies solely in what’s good for the clan. Being this way makes for a tight group but acts as a hurdle to co-operating on a larger scale. An Arab tribe is a collection of the same kind of clan groups but on a slightly larger scale brought together for the purposes of mutual defence. It takes worry over external threats to get the individual clans to combine to the tribal level. In my opinion that’s the natural limit for clannish populations without some extra ingredient.
Jews have that same basic clannish nature but managed to push it up to the national scale. They did it partly through creating very strong unifiers like a tribal religion but also imo through the way they distort their history. By making out they were and are constantly under attack, always the innocent victim, always persecuted, always just a few days away from annihilation they bring their kids up to feel like they’re in a state of permanent cold war with non-Jews. It’s the extreme paranoia and sense of looming threat they instill in themselves and their kids that has allowed them to operate in the same way as a Mafia clan but on a larger scale.
Jews take ethno-centricity to its maximum limit. In their own country it would make them defensively extremely strong but once released into the wild it means they’re permanently at war with everyone and with no moral restraints apart from fear of retaliation. Tikkun Olan is just ethno-centricity in it’s ultimate form – Jews owning everything and ruling everyone. They call it “healing the world” to disguise what it is which is an exact blueprint of what they’d call Nazism if anyone else espoused the same goal.
Apart from small pockets on the remoter edges of Europe, Eurocaucasians are different to everybody else. For some reason up in the north they became less ethno-centric in the narrow clannish sense. This had the advantage of allowing greater levels of inter-clan co-operation – which is i assume why it evolved – with the disadvantage that it theoretically allows infiltration by more ethno-centric groups who would have an advantage in internal competition.
(The disadvantage would only have shown up later when those northern groups used their evolved advantages to spread back south again.)
If a population evolves a lower level of clannish ethno-centricity then it needs another way of creating group unity. It will automatically become more ideal-centric. (The ideal in question could be tribalism or nationalism but derived from the IDEAL part of the brain rather than the INSTINCT part).
Puritanism is just one of many examples where that ideal-centricity became extreme. It is the opposite of Jewishness in that anyone can be part of the ideal-centric group if they accept the ideal. It can be similarly totalitarian but the motivation is ideal-centric not ethno-centric. Jews seek to manipulate our ideal-centricity for their own ethno-centric ends.
The reason why i think this distinction is important is that i believe the Eurocaucasian population is made up of a minority who are fully ethno-centric, a minority who are fully ideal-centric (where the crusaders come from), and a majority in the middle who are a bit of both. I think the middle majority are instinctively mildly ethno-centric but they are ruled by the metal plate in their frontal lobe that makes them guilt-conform to the logos of the current priesthood.
If true this is why the sort of appeals to Eurocaucasian ethno-centricity which work on all other groups – La Raza, Black Caucus, Bnai Brith etc – don’t work. The ethno-centric minority are onside by default but they know they’re a minority so they hang back. If so this means there are only two viable tacks: one is vanguardism aimed at the ethno-centric minority *in full knowledge* it will always be a minority except in some kind of crisis in the future and hoping to win a fight at that point OR aiming at the frontal lobe of the middle majority knowing that if you crack that the ethno minority will automatically join in.
The frontal lobe strategy involves destroying the faith of the middle majority in the logos of their current priesthood, becoming the new priesthood and then replacing the current logos with a new one (or an old one). This programming can include ethno-centricty and nationalism as an IDEAL e.g via social biology or some other way, but it needs to be in the form of an ideal as we can’t rely on simple instinct like other groups except in the most extreme circumstances.
Wandrin, I believe that you have just summed up the basic reasons for White ethnic dormancy and political ineffectualness. You may have even broken new ground in explaining how and why the White psyche is so ethnocentrically weak, and at odds with its own sense of identity and collective purpose. The last three paragraphs that you wrote explains an awful lot about our racial foibles, and, best of all, identifies the options open to us in dealing with them. You are really onto something here! You have cut through the foggy enigma of our ethnic and psychological dilemma. Please refine your thesis and expand upon it, as this is just the kind of insight that we need in order to deal intellectually and ideologically with our racial decline.
@ Junghans: Ditto. And this last Wandrin sentence—:
—makes me feel for the Nth time that the assassination of Nazi Germany by the Allied Forces (cf. C-C article here), the one and single country which started to develop a new national ideal or paradigm once it was clear that we are living in the last phases of Christendom, was the gravest sin that the West has ever committed against itself. The IDEAL reminds me once more that Wm. Pierce was onto something in the article that Greg republished here at the beginning of this year (and I included today in my collection of best articles). Personally, the ideal of a world populated by Parrishesque nymphs and ephebes (like in Arthur C. Clarke’s The Songs of Distant Earth) has taken hold of my psyche as strongly as a Jungian archetype. But the rest of whites, according to the Pierce article, still have to rediscover their lost soul.
My own one is already possessed by a myth. But as O’Meara has stated elsewhere no one knows what form will the next myth take. My guess is that we have to harp on relentlessly on Holodomor images, documentaries and films to balance, and eventually remove, a virus with which the Jews infected our mind: the Holocaust guilt that blocks the white psyche from developing its soul.
That would not create the new ideal/myth, but it is a necessary preliminary step for a collective awakening.
How right you are, Chechar. The Anglo-Bolshevik matricide of Europe was indeed a mega-blunder and mortal sin, to say the least. We are still floundering about in the intellectual debris of that watershed disaster. Unfortunately, we WN hereabouts seem to be the only ones capable of recognizing it; most inane Whites simply don’t. That’s why we have to recognized the importance of the observations of Oliver, Pierce, and just now, ‘Wandrin’. They have stated, what can only be considered the vital KEYS, to understanding what make the average White mind tick. This understanding is most critical, for without it, we are stumbling blindly. Our resources are so miniscule, and the enemy occupied territory so large. Why flail about behind the curve, when we can cut to the chase? We need to make every move count for something in cracking open the captive White mindset, and ultimately unleashing a flood of White idealism.
We, in fact, as you suggest, do need to portray ourselves as victims, in any way that we can, because morality and idealism (or, the under-dog sympathy syndrome) seem to be the only things that move the altruistically flummoxed White psyche off dead center. The guilt trips heaped upon us needs to be neutralized, in any way possible. We need to play the stacked kosher deck of racial cards accordingly. We need to become card readers and card counters, metaphorically speaking. The key is, thus, understanding and applying key points of White psychology, in every strategic and tactical way possible.
The last three paragraphs are of seminal importance.
“And THEN What?”
The Solution is multitiered, and multigenerational.
I’ve argued for broad use of Bob Whitaker’s Mantra, focusing on grandchildren, as a first step in idealistic identification with the future of the Race.
The Northwest Republic remains the best choice for a temporal bridge for the metapolitical project, as we escape the spiral of despair, while addressing issues metathematically.
Above all, we must be continuously proactive.
Where to start?
Sending money to support Counter-Currents is an excellent place to start.
What’s In YOUR Future?
Fourmyle of Ceres,
The mantra might be ok, but it is only the “A” latter of the alphabet. As you can see in the last comments by Junghans and Wandrin, we must first try to understand the other letters of the white psyche before trying to push any buttons.
Presently western people are thoroughly feminized. Like women, western men are moved by pity. If the metaphor of the giant-red star is accurate—the giant red of Christianity in its latest phases expanding thosandfold before contracting in the 22nd century as a miserable white dwarf—, in this stage all deracinated westerners, even the secularists and atheists, only want to imitate St Francis’ deranged altruism. This means that, paradoxically, only a feminized sense of pity could vaccinate them against this virus of the mind.
Today I added images of Ward Kendall’s—who btw has just left a comment in my latest entry—novel and another of Hellstorm to my blog because this is probably the only message that can tick whites’ minds again (see also The Holocaust perpetrated by Jews).
Elsewhere I read that only an insightful blogger such as Trainspotter could discover a solution for the current impasse. I now believe that these revelations by Junghans and Wandrin remove the first bushes of the still virginal path that we must now cross.
We don’t have money for even low budget adaptations of either Hold Back This Day or Hellstorm. But native English speakers could try to communicate these potentially paradigm-threatening subjects in YouTube with the passion of, say, counter-jihadist Pat Condell (e.g., here). If my grasp of the white psyche is accurate, ten WNists speaking like Condell—an atheist btw—would mark the birth of a new star in the western hemisphere: the star of white nationalism.
Hitler said that only the right kind of oratory can move the masses. If he was right, and I believe he is, we could even start trying to move the movement from its metapolitical stage to the political one.
Just focus on the spoken word…
So much of the commentary in WNist circles is derivative, in effect, a continuous rehashing of the same core insights with slight variations depending on the context of the discussion. You have a real talent for developing new insights and taking known insights in new directions. I agree with Junghans; please continue to refine your ideas. They’re very helpful.
@ “So much of the commentary in WNist circles is derivative, in effect, a continuous rehashing of the same core insights with slight variations…”
Whatever the originality of these ideas, every time I use them on counter-jihadists as guinea pigs (who are notoriously philo-Semitic) to demonstrate that if we use the liberal language of pity, and apply this compassion on the Nazi Germans as the victims of Hellstorm or to the Ukraine people victims of the Jews, I have managed to silence the Jew-worshipers.
See e.g., this recent thread. When I raised the JQ I was called “troll”, “a racist Nazi dips&%t”, “is still RACISM. Plenty of reasons to be sickened by Chechar”, “he is effectively trying to insert white supremacism into the narrative”, “The more you talk the more you dig yourself into a hole, Chechar. You are an anti-Semite through and through. And a real racist”, and “Also, I’ve read some of your blog, both the old and new one, and their vomit Inducing”.
But soon after I backed up my historical claims about the Holodomor, a revelation for these people sleeping in the matrix, the insults ceased.
What is new here is that, if we have psychoanalyzed well the white psyche (and please remember that the image of a martyred son of God arose the pity of the Roman citizens to the point of changing their whole paradigm), we can use neo-Christianity—i.e., the liberal meme and its ethics of deranged altruism—to destroy neo-Christianity (i.e., to destroy liberalism). After all, the key to this liberal ideology is the belief in tolerance or non-discrimination as the ruling principle of society. This is shattered with my compassion destroying their compassion.
And furthermore, if I have read the current western mind clairvoyantly, only good orators (not me: I’m not a native English speaker) can use pity in the form of Hellstorm or Holodomor to destroy pity: in the sense of getting rid of the whites’ deranged altruism on Jews and so-called minorities that has taken hold of the Western psyche.
Here’s one example from a book-review of Hellstorm:
We need lots of Hitlers talking about it, starting in YouTube.
Nice work that jihad thread. I’m surprised Robert Spencer lets you comment there.
I heard Geraldo Rivera say to Pat Buchannan in an interview: “I WILL FOLLOW YOUR PEOPLE WHERE EVER THEY GO!!!”
Speaking of Jews, anyone who hasn’t seen it really needs to check out the movie Defamation currently running on TOO.
Yes: it’s a must-see. It illustrates many of the points that I have learnt on print but this time with interviews. For the first time Abe Foxman is exposed visually for what he is.
Unfortunately KMD doesn’t keep an archive for all of his past featured videos. Here there’s a more permanent link of this film.
Speaking of paradigm-threatening videos, where pity of Jews is transformed to Jew hatred. Do you know that Ashkenazi Jews performed eugenic, Mendele-like experiments on Sephardic children?
See it with your own eyes…
For “Mendele” replace “Mengele”.
I have informed Prof. MacDonald of this documentary and it’s now up at TOO.
(Cognitive elitists love intelligence, not their race, which contains dumb as well as smart people.)
Lol. You actually take “Cognitive Elitism” (IMO the scare-quotes are a necessary part of the term) seriously?
Because the populations that push “CE” (Ashkenazis, Chinese, south Asians, etc.) sure don’t.
Israeli policy is hostile to “CE.” So are Chinese, Japanese, Indian, and Pakistani policy.
None of the homelands of the “Cognitive Elitists” are pursuing “Cognitive Elitism.”
“Cognitive Elitism” is just more of the same “do as I say, not as I do” crap from the usual suspects.
If “Cognitive Elitism” is a winning game, we can try it out in someone else’s back yard, no? Let’s see the Israelis offer up the elite positions in their society to brilliant Chinese, Indians, and yes, Europeans. Surely they’d get a big bang for their buck, being such a small country. Right?
Sure, the Chinese are smart, but Ashkenazis are smarter; so shouldn’t China be striving toward seating an Ashkenazi “Cognitive Elite” on the Chinese throne? Right?
“Cognitive Elitism”; it’s so smart that none of the “Cognitively Elite” populations will touch it with a 40′ pole.
Yes, only whites would take such a deracinated notion seriously, thus opening them to being taken over by aliens and miscegenated out of existence.
Junghans, Chechar, Lew
It’s mostly KMac’s ideas filtered through a political brain. I don’t think we can fight our nature. We need to work with the grain which in our case counter-intuitively means an ideal based version of ethno-centrism.
Wandrin, it’s true, it’s hard to fight nature. We have to work in harmony with it, including our own genetic nature, warts & all. That’s what’s at issue here, as you recognize. The appeal of the ‘moral’ and the ‘ideal’ to the general White mindset is clearly important. Sentimentality, fantasy & delusion are other key components. Our ethnic opponents have read our ‘nature’, and locked onto our mental foibles in order to denature and/or exploit us [the mind altering parasite meme]. That being the case, we need to reverse engineer what has been done by our opponents, and channel the psyops war onto our home turf. Yes, easier said than done.
To appeal to our people, we should push a sense of ethnic grievance, a sense of unfair wealth dispossession, and a sense of being the persecuted under-dog. Our people must feel that they have been lied to, and their pockets picked [how true]. Anything and everything to picture ourselves as a beaten-up, unfairly treated, threatened and aggrieved people. The victims, in fact, of a long standing, orchestrated, anti-White race war. The victims of enemies within and without, gathering for the kill. This state of affairs is rapidly approaching anyway, so this racial grievance trump card, along with the economic woe factor, is likely going to be the key to cracking open the pent-up emotional frustration of Whites. ‘Save America’ could be the rallying cry, with full bore nationalistic, star spangled, patriotic appeal. This could allow the WN vanguard, if not co-opted, a chance to square things away. Such a scenario is possible, if Whites have the moxie.
When Jesse Helms ran an explicitly pro-White/economic dispossession/anti-affirmative action advertisement, it made the difference for victory in that campaign.
He was immediately, ruthlessly, totally attacked by the Republican leadership at all levels.
This was the beginning of my Racial Awakening; the unimaginable idea that the political power would support the Consensus Trance at the expense of victory.
In time, I realized “democracy” is a fraud, and our politicians are really salesmen posing as entertainers.
Their success is measured in how effectively they can enforce the Consensus Trance for the Owners.
What’s In YOUR Future?
I’m not convinced that whites are inherently less ethnocentric than non-whites. Even today, after being subjected to the most extensive propaganda campaign in history, we see whites overwhelmingly marrying whites, moving to white (or at least whiter) neighborhoods, and maintaining social circles that are overwhelmingly white. Whites require no ideology to do these things, in fact they do these things contra the prevailing spirit of the times.
When we examine the historical record of non-whites, they don’t necessarily display wondrous attributes in this department. The non-white world was ridiculously easy, all things considered, for the white man to conquer. Non-white females shamelessly made themselves available to European men, and in fact still do (especially the “ethnocentric” Asians). European empires found no shortage of non-whites to do their bidding, at every level.
A bit closer to home, let’s look at American blacks. Centuries of slavery, and virtually no uprisings to speak of. Next to nothing. Northern visitors were amazed, when they visited Southern friends, that there seemed to be no security precautions whatsoever concerning the blacks. Instead, blacks had the run of the place, and could have easily killed their sleeping masters. Yet over the course of centuries this hardly ever happened.
In all of these cases, a determined ethnocentric population, united by tribal loyalty, could have made short work of deracinated, idealistic to a fault whites. Why didn’t this happen?
Historically, I think a good argument could be made that whites have a better overall track record in this department than non-whites, hard as that is to believe today. Even something familiar to modern Americans such as blacks notoriously ganging up on and beating a lone white, while other whites stand idly by – that wouldn’t have happened until recently. Just a few decades ago, blacks would have stood idly by as a white beat the living hell out of one of their “brothers.” A black friend of mine once told me (I’ve never verified it) that Emmett Till’s family, pretty much knowing what was going to happen, allowed the whites to enter the house and take the would be miscegenator away. No resistance at all.
This is a very complicated subject, and space prevents me from addressing a tithe of the issues that I’d like, but the point is that whites aren’t made of glass. In some ways we are more ethnocentric, as non-white loyalty often taps out at the family level or maybe the clan, whereas whites can identify and closely cooperate with our broader ethny. We recognize our blood, even today – and at a distance.
Our problem is essentially one of power. The same black family that didn’t lift a finger in Emmett’s defense would today go absolutely ballistic if a white so much as looked at them the wrong way. Why? Power. They know that it is o.k. to respond in such a way, that society will back them. Similarly, if a white sticks his neck out for a fellow white, he knows that far from being rewarded, he will be punished. These days, it’s just not o.k. to stick up for our fellow whites – but it was not always so. We are living in a fluke, an anomaly. More’s the pity.
Ironically, our ethnocentrism may have somewhat led to our present sorry state. Not limited to the family or clan in our loyalties, but instead extending our good will to those who basically looked like us, we allowed massive Jewish infiltration of our society. Within a matter of decades we had a group of people more or less masquerading as us, and benefiting from our good will, yet who despised us with such malevolence as to be almost unfathomable to a normal person. Who could be like that? Who could be so evil? As a people, we just didn’t get it.
In any event, the bottom line is that we lack power, and various manifestations of non-white solidarity and conversely the absence of white solidarity (at least explicit) are simply results that flow from this fundamental reality.
There was interesting exchange at Majority Rights that seems to vindicate Wandrin’s view of the White mindset. A young woman from South Africa came into the Majority Rights comments, agreed that Whites in South Africa are suffering a slow genocide, agreed that SA is falling apart, mentioned that her family has suffered a home invasion and other crimes, and then went on to … what else? …. complain about racism. She literally hits every bromide we discuss often. They’re not all like that, Blacks are suffering too, I know many good ones, and so on. It’s evident from her comments that her mind is completely infected the poison. Her outlook is dominated by two ideas: a concern for justice for all (universalist morality) and memories of the good Blacks she has known personally.
You are quite right, Lew. I have a cousin here in Mexico City, the sister of Gerardo Tort, the filmmaker. A couple of months ago she phoned me, complaining for hours about the utter deterioration of this town. After an army of color took over, what we got is unemployment, crime, the beheadings of drug wars (overwhelmingly Indian mestizos), the kidnappings, etc. My cousin, who’s about my age and single, needs a much better job.
When I mentioned that the real culprit of such demographic deterioration was the 20th century policy of vaccinating those swarms of Indians instead of just letting them die as in the early 19th century, she immediately answered: “They should have the same rights!” I mean, my poor cousin is sick; she doesn’t want to read the news of the beheadings, etc, for the shocking content, and is always in self-pity mood. But she still places the “rights” of the ethnics who took over above her own interests…
Although unlike she her brother Gerardo is successful as a filmmaker, he subscribes too to the same suicidal ethos. They may be white Mexicans but we are no longer on speaking terms. You don’t have to go as far as South Africa to know what happens when the lower caste overwhelms the white caste with a marabunta of colored people.
“Not limited to the family or clan in our loyalties, but instead extending our good will to those who basically looked like us, we allowed massive Jewish infiltration of our society.”
That’s my point. Jews only needed to be 10% or 20% White to be accepted as part of “us” where with Chinese, Persians, Algerians they’d need to be 3/4 or 7/8. That’s why they could hijack our societies so easily imo. With clannish peoples if Jews want to operate covertly they have to change themselves to the point where they’re no longer biologically Jews anymore. They can still operate overtly among other clannish peoples but not in the dual-identity covert way that gives them such an advantage over us.
That’s the first part.
The second part follows from the first in that if a group doesn’t base its cohesion completely on genetic morality then it has to be partly based on something else. If White people are less ethno-centric then by definition they have to be more ideal-centric where the ideal in question is the ruling Logos of the society.
White people *want* to be loyal to the ruling Logos because until it is replaced it is the basis of loyalty and social cohesion. Without it the bonds of society break. So once Jews stealthed their way into hijacking the means of production of the Logos it was all downhill racing for them.
The key points are
1) The initial hijack requires a Trojan horse population. This is possible because white people have a lower threshold on the definition of “us” such that only slightly mixed Jews are accepted as long as they don’t make a point of visually differentiating themselves. Blacks or Chinese or Jews in the big hats couldn’t have done it because they’re too visibly not-us.
2) Being less ethno-centric automatically makes us more ideal-centric. This meant that once the means of producing the ideals were hijacked Jews could use this trait to lower our resistance to groups who are much more visually not-us.
“yet who despised us with such malevolence as to be almost unfathomable to a normal person. Who could be like that? Who could be so evil? As a people, we just didn’t get it.”
Other clannish populations get it but it doesn’t bother them because they’re the same way.
“we see whites overwhelmingly marrying whites, moving to white (or at least whiter) neighborhoods, and maintaining social circles that are overwhelmingly white.”
I’m not saying White people aren’t ethno-centric *as well* just that the weighting is different. The perfect example are white flighters always saying it’s about the schools. Every other ethnic group who move to an ethnic enclave will say it’s because their own people are there.
“When we examine the historical record of non-whites, they don’t necessarily display wondrous attributes in this department. The non-white world was ridiculously easy, all things considered, for the white man to conquer.”
Non-whites, or non-Eurocaucasians being more clannish is a weakness in external conflicts because it makes people less willing to co-operate beyond the clan level. White people being less ethno-centric is an advantage in all but the specific context we happen to be in. If it wasn’t an advantage it wouldn’t have evolved in the hostile northern latitudes.
“In all of these cases, a determined ethnocentric population, united by tribal loyalty, could have made short work of deracinated, idealistic to a fault whites. Why didn’t this happen?”
Because they were much more visibly not-us. Jews in their big hats would be too visibly not-us also.
Junghans, Lew, Chechar
“Her outlook is dominated by two ideas: a concern for justice for all (universalist morality) and memories of the good Blacks she has known personally.”
“she immediately answered: “They should have the same rights!””
“To appeal to our people, we should push a sense of ethnic grievance, a sense of unfair wealth dispossession, and a sense of being the persecuted under-dog.”
I think a corallary of universal values is that logical inconsistency, double standards and hypocrisy become kryptonite. If you have enough time one on one you can walk people through a kind of de-programming just by listing the ways the universal values they are holding to aren’t being reciprocated. You don’t make an argument you just point out the obvious. If it works eventually their shoulders sag and head drops like you pulled an operating chip out of their forehead. Then you can put something else in.
“I think a corollary of universal values is that logical inconsistency, double standards and hypocrisy become kryptonite.”
…as happened in Mexico: a nation that’s now almost gone. I’d be interested to know what do you think about this excerpt that I translated today.
Thanks for helping me in the correction of my syntactic inaccuracies.
Great review and I wouldn’t worry about the tepid policy suggestions. If Whites become aware of how mistaken they have been, the policy solutions will become available. Right now, the focus should be on educating more Whites. I doubt this book will ever be in my local Barnes and Noble.
Wandrin: “That’s my point. Jews only needed to be 10% or 20% White to be accepted as part of “us” where with Chinese, Persians, Algerians they’d need to be 3/4 or 7/8”
We pretty much followed the one drop rule, while allowing for some modest gray areas. We certainly didn’t consider a black or mestizo to be white simply because he had 10 to 20 percent white ancestry. That makes whites even more selective than a typical Algerian or Chinaman. Even today, someone would be considered “mixed” with even a small amount of non-white blood, if it caused a visible alteration in phenotype.
The Jews managed to slip in, not because they were considered 1/10 white, but rather because they appeared to be “white,” period. They more or less look like us, just uglier on average. Sure, lots of people had at least some reservations, and there were plenty of private clubs and various restrictive covenants and quotas that were directed at Jews. But, all in all, they were considered white because they had a basically European appearance. I’m not aware of them being legally defined as non-white, in terms of anti-white miscegenation laws, etc.
I don’t think it’s fair to chalk that up to a lack of ethnocentrism on the part of whites. Even National Socialist propaganda recognized this (see The Eternal Jew) and some of Hitler’s comments make the problem clear (In Mein Kampf, he discusses his early impressions of Jews, and it is clear that he struggled with the issue in a way that he wouldn’t have had it been a Bantu or a Chinaman. He also makes some relevant comments in Table Talk).
White societies have had, in general, a more pure and effective “filter” than most non-whites. Unfortunately, the filter had a fatal weakness, as it allowed in one particularly disastrous contaminant. This failure has literally been our undoing.
Wandrin: “White people *want* to be loyal to the ruling Logos because until it is replaced it is the basis of loyalty and social cohesion. Without it the bonds of society break.”
Yes, yes, a thousand times yes. This is a critical point that I’ve thought about a lot, wrote about some, but you’ve nailed it. For several years, I’ve wanted to create a “blueprint” of sorts to provide a way out of our predicament, but it is this issue that troubles me more than most. While I disagree with you on the ethnocentrism issue, you are definitely on to something here.
Wandrin: “I’m not saying White people aren’t ethno-centric *as well* just that the weighting is different. The perfect example are white flighters always saying it’s about the schools. Every other ethnic group who move to an ethnic enclave will say it’s because their own people are there.”
Eh…I just don’t see that as being revealing of too much. Just the outcome of power and, as you address above, upholding the bonds of social cohesion. Nothing to do with us being inherently less ethnocentric. We’ve been hijacked, plain and simple.
Wandrin: “Non-whites, or non-Eurocaucasians being more clannish is a weakness in external conflicts because it makes people less willing to co-operate beyond the clan level. White people being less ethno-centric is an advantage in all but the specific context we happen to be in. If it wasn’t an advantage it wouldn’t have evolved in the hostile northern latitudes.”
We might be talking past one another on this. To my mind, the person who is excessively clannish is not particularly ethnocentric. He doesn’t give a fig about his broader ethny, only his close relatives. Whites, on the other hand, have typically extended considerable loyalty to their broader ethny (at least up to the level of a language barrier), making us *more* ethnocentric, if anything. But that one virus passed through, a virus that looked enough like us so that the body’s immune system didn’t detect it, and you know the rest.
Lew: “They’re not all like that, Blacks are suffering too, I know many good ones, and so on. It’s evident from her comments that her mind is completely infected the poison.”
This is indeed tragic, but it’s nothing new. I think that Wandrin’s ethnocentrism argument is weak, but his other argument is strong. He addresses the problem well with this line:
“White people *want* to be loyal to the ruling Logos because until it is replaced it is the basis of loyalty and social cohesion. Without it the bonds of society break.”
That’s our problem, not our supposed lack of ethnocentrism per se. Once a nation has truly become multiracial, the only thing between a measure of stability and total chaos is maintaining some degree of comity between the incompatible racial types. This can be achieved, at least somewhat, with a combination of propaganda and suppression.
I’ve said again and again: once you accept alien races amongst your ranks, liberalism begins to make sense. For example, I was listening to a recent episode of the Political Cesspool. James Edwards often analyzes the problem behaviors amongst blacks, and he does a good job of this in a way which can reach ordinary people.
Yet this female listener calls in, and agrees with Edwards that the black community has real problems, HOWEVER (she really liked that word) she would then go on to say that it’s in our best interest to help the black schools, because better educated blacks will be at least somewhat less likely to attack us, carjack us, and so forth.
So even though Edwards “won” the argument in the truest sense, and is far better informed than the caller, who offered at least something resembling a solution? The caller did. She made a perfectly legitimate point, one that is likely to sway many a person. Of course it was a liberal solution, because again, liberalism starts making sense in a multiracial sewer.
Of course, the only real solution is to have our own society, free of alien disruption and destruction. A land of our own, where we can develop according to our own nature and preferences. Where we can not only protect and preserve, but develop and evolve. But if you’re an ordinary person, which solution seems more attainable, mine or “well, let’s just spend some more money on black students. Sure, most of it will be wasted, but if it stops only one carjacking, maybe it’s worth it…”
You get the idea.
Basically, we need a whole new paradigm. In the current one, liberalism makes sense. That’s why virtually no efforts at white political resistance have worked thus far. It always comes to naught, not because we are wrong (we are right) but we haven’t been able to upend the current paradigm in which our vision simply doesn’t seem viable to our target market.
Paradigm shifts do happen, so all is not lost.
In fact, I’m convinced that we’re going to win this thing, but we must remember that we are currently operating in a paradigm that stacks everything against us, and makes the bizarre and destructive appear normal. We should do our best to not let this discourage us, but instead focus our efforts on laying the foundation for a new paradigm, one that is consistent with the survival of our people.
Trainspotter, It is always a pleasure to read you. Since that last debate when OD melted down and more recently at MR I have always paid special attention to what you say. I hope to continue to see you around here at CC. Cheers!
I, too, am glad to see Trainspotter back, as I usually value his perceptive thought. My thinking on the Anglo/White mindset, that we are investigating in this thread, has pretty well been stated above. A new political/intellectual paradigm is certainly called for, indeed essential, if we are to survive at all. Here, we are talking about a bold sense of White racial identity. This is the one vital thing that most Whites, for whatever reason, cringe at the thought of, however. Christian universalism most certainly clouds the thinking, as does the muddled ideal of the so-called “proposition nation”.
Most Whites, unfortunately, feigned “respectability” and “morality”, and avoided the important issue of race, even during the heyday of Shufeldt, Madison Grant, Stoddard, Cox and Bilbo. That was when we still had audible voices in open public discourse. Today, the intellectually poisoned, average White mindset, that is most desperately in need of such a revolution in thought, is locked down in media constructed ‘political correctness’.
The roots of this ideological toxification are important to identify. All of the causes and effects of our current state of ethnic lethargy should be pondered and assessed, whether innate or otherwise. Identifying any and all White psychological foibles, is vital, to my way of thinking. Here, the work of Gustave Le Bon is apparent. Ellsworth Huntington, in his seminal work, The Character Of Races, also stressed the differences in racial psyches. The duplicity of our peoples’ implicit whiteness has been an historical phenomenon that now has us trapped, as a people, in a shrinking mental cul de sac.
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment