Wallet Lives Matter! Or, Will the Real Racist Please Stand UpSpencer J. Quinn
The anti-white, former ESPN personality Jemele Hill tweeted something stupid again recently. But it was inadvertently interesting, and so worthy of comment. She initially tweeted this:
If you vote for Donald Trump, you are a racist. You have no wiggle room.
— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) July 19, 2020
Okay, nothing too interesting there. Pretty much all Leftists, and certainly all black leftists, find racism as the prime motivator behind everything white people do that they don’t like. This attitude gels nicely with their own natural ethnocentrism and has become their quickest route to power. They perceive with some justice that whites have become pushovers in today’s society when it comes to race. The letter R has indeed become the new scarlet letter in the twentieth-first century — but only for whites — and if you scream at them loudly enough about it, whites will cave and give black people whatever they want.
I apologize for boring you with things we already know. It was Hill’s follow-up tweet that I found so interesting.
Ok, your wallet is racist then. https://t.co/x0q1vGgbC1
— Jemele Hill (@jemelehill) July 19, 2020
Aside from her wallets-are-racist charge being entirely unreasonable (not to mention absurd), this tweet exchange should remind all whites of how powerful this racism charge really is. From a tactical perspective, a white person accused of being a racist has few obvious choices for rebuttal. There are indeed several self-defeating options laid out before him.
- He could agree and apologize. This is capitulation and will succeed only in getting the rage mob off the victim’s doorstep for the time being. This tactic also serves to exclude the victim from any meaningful influence in society from then on.
- He could agree and own it. This tactic requires a certain amount of moxie, it’s true. But it will result in universal ostracism and deplatforming for the victim which will also exclude him from any meaningful influence in society.
- He could deny and argue that he is not racist. This tactic ultimately fails because it accepts the Left’s premise that racism is bad, especially anti-black racism. With reasonable opponents, such a tactic could work. But with unreasonable partisan antagonists like Jemele Hill, it will only serve to redouble their efforts. Denying the racism charge will only ensure that the next charge comes even more forcefully. Our enemies understand that if whites accept their premise, that’s half the battle right there.
- He could deny and charge that people on the Left are the real racists. This tactic also accepts the Left’s premise that anti-black racism is the evilest form of evil, it just turns the R-word back on the accuser. Clever, right? Such a tactic would include claiming that Planned Parenthood is racist because it oversees so many black abortions or that the Left is racist because it dehumanizes racial minorities, or that the Democratic Party is racist because black unemployment is so high in Democrat-controlled cities or because it supported slavery and the Ku Klux Klan so many years ago.
Despite probably being the best of the bunch, this last option is pure sophistry, and as a tactic laughable on its face. It assumes that the Left — especially the Black Left — actually cares about things like abortion, unemployment, and history. It assumes that the Black Left actually cares about black lives when its silence regarding the catastrophically high black-on-black murder rate so plainly belies this claim. They don’t care about black lives. They care only about power. To take the leaders of the Black Left at their word whenever they open their mouths is pure foolishness. These leaders, among whom we’d have to include Jemele Hill, know that their ethnocentric followers will support them over any milquetoast white stupid enough to take their silly argumentations seriously — even if it means more black abortions and higher black unemployment.
White people have to realize that these are not white people we are dealing with. For most blacks, their tribalist self-interest overrides their economic, religious, and civic self-interest. Most of them would rather suffer more poverty and more oppression under black rule than suffer less poverty and less oppression under white rule. Maybe this hasn’t always been the case, but it sure is the case today.
This is why the “Demz are the real racists” meme is mocked so mercilessly on the Right. It’s a loser’s gambit. It’s too clever by half. It ignores profound truths in order to harp on trivial ones.
However. . .
It does at least show some fighting spirit, and with some adjustment could prove to be effective. After all, the Democrats and the Left are the real racists — it’s just that they are anti-white racists. This is the drum that everyone on the Right should be banging. It doesn’t matter if the Left and the Democratic Party are anti-black because even the blacks don’t care about that. And by “racist,” I don’t mean accepting the scientific fact that there are intelligence and temperament differences among the races. “Racist” in this case means seeking power for one’s race over other races for purely tribalist reasons. Whites may have been like this in past (and were relatively benign about it in many places), but not so anymore. Blacks, on the other hand, are becoming more and more like this every day, and they are anything but benign.
This leads to the second prong of our little counterattack. Thus far, the racist vs. not-racist paradigm cedes the high ground to the blacks where they, as the historically oppressed minorities they purport themselves to be, can easily paint themselves to be victims — even as they are victimizing whites. The anti-white racism charge, however, requires very little retooling to become the much more potent black supremacy charge. Such an accusation will force the Black Left on the defensive since fighting a largely non-existent “white supremacy” is their bread and butter. If such a charge were presented in any forceful and systematic way from the Right, sooner or later the Black Left would have to provide reasons why they are indeed not black supremacists.
Yeah, good luck with that. Nothing looks worse than seeing someone dissemble on the hot seat when the truth is not on their side. As we all know, the Black Left lives and breathes black supremacy. Proving this would be child’s play.
The final prong involves something other than race. It involves character. Labeling people on the Black Left as the real racists in the ways described directly above is tantamount to saying they have no honor. They are hypocrites. They are liars. They stand for nothing. The list goes on. These people claim to be anti-racism, yet they promote racism. This is the only page in their playbook. Bull Connor was never so two-faced. At least with Bull Connor, what you saw was what you got. With the Black Left, however, it’s anything but. The Black Left cannot even aspire to the high standards of moral probity expressed by segregationist stalwarts like Bull Connor.
Once a charge like this gains traction on the mainstream Right — and it could, since it nicely sidesteps race — then the issue becomes personal. It’s no longer Right vs. Left or White vs. Black. It’s Truth vs. Jemele Hill.
And from there it would take little effort to demonstrate that Jemele Hill is “racist” against all wallets except her own.
If you want to support our work, please send us a donation by going to our Entropy page and selecting “send paid chat.” Entropy allows you to donate any amount from $3 and up. All comments will be read and discussed in the next episode of Counter-Currents Radio, which airs every Friday.
Don’t forget to sign up for the twice-monthly email Counter-Currents Newsletter for exclusive content, offers, and news.
IQ Is a Phenotype
Trevor Lynch’s Classics of Right-Wing Cinema
Institutional Racism Explained
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 526 Cyan Quinn Reports from CPAC & More
Do You Have What It Takes to be a Dissident?
CPAC 2023: The Republican Party is Dying Out
The Abolitionists as Virtue-Signalers: Nehemiah Adams & A South-side View of Slavery
Remembering Richard M. Weaver (March 3, 1910–April 1, 1963)
If such a charge [of Black supremacy] were presented in any forceful and systematic way from the Right, sooner or later the Black Left would have to provide reasons why they are indeed not black supremacists.
I doubt that’s how it would work. Rather, Blacks and their (((enablers))) would respond with some reason why ‘Blacks cannot be Black supremacists’, along with academic articles and constant repetition of the meme.
Whites would right back where we started.
Option 2 is really the only viable option. However, in order for this to be the right choice, Whites need to organize to provide economic support for the vanguard. The obvious answer to the charge of ‘racism’ is ‘I love my race. Do you love my race?’ Make them say they hate White people. That’s way better than expecting reciprocity or consistency or ethical conduct from our racial enemies.
The best two responses I can think of are:
1) Ask them to define “racism.” If they don’t immediately spit something out that’s at least semi-coherent, you’re got the upper hand. Say, “How can you accuse me of something that you can’t even define?”
2) Call them anti-white. This puts them immediately on the defensive, something they’re entirely too used to doing to us.
Neither of those options work for two reasons, first, you’re accepting their terminology. Second, you aren’t actually describing your viewpoint at all. Option two is the only way to go. Someone calls you racist, you tell them to fuck themselves, because racist is just a slur for Whites. It means nothing anymore. Don’t accept the validity of the term, don’t accept the framework. They call you racist, you call them a fucking retard. The terms are equivalent at this point.
Asking them to define “racism” has been my response also. You need to find out what their understanding of “racism” is; what the extension/scope/range of the term is.
Toss in some absurd examples to trivialize the concept : Is it racist to say “blacklisted”? “Master bedroom”? “Niggardly”?
Is it racist to think the next James Bond should be a white actor?
Is a golliwog doll racist?
And here’s a good’un: ask them if it’s racist to say “Jewish Lives Matter”? That should give them conniptions.
But Hamburger’s suggestion : “‘I love my race. Do you love my race?’ Make them say they hate White people” is pretty damned good also. That might be my new fave comeback.
Well analyzed but all four of these options surrender the advantage before the fight!
The best response (in my opinion, and more imprtantly in my practical experience), is:
“Anti-racism is a codeword for Anti-white”.
Short, sweet, alliterative, complete.
Even the least among our folk can remember, understand, and deploy this
rhetorical nuclear weapon.
Bob Whitaker gave us this hammer (and some other great weapons), and we should beat all these
“anti-racist” (ie. anti-white), haters down to hell with it.
“Anti-racism is a codeword for Anti-white”.
That’s all we need.
Stick to what works.
In case it’s challenged I think we should respond that the latest woke talking points are :
1) ONLY whites can be racist, never blacks. (‘Cos power imbalances.)
2) ALL whites are racist whether they know it or not. (‘Cos unconscious bias.)
So as “racist” designates only white people, and every blessed one of us at that, “anti-racism” simply must be a codeword for anti-white.
I typically bring up to normies that I was called a racist by someone who is espousing dangerous and radical beliefs. Then we have a conversation about my beliefs and they, being my friends, agree that my beliefs (that I’ve curated and shared) aren’t racist. I am red pilling my town.
Simply dispense with the word “racist”. Do not try to define it, do not try to dissect it. It is so prevalent because of the reaction it gets. Treat it as the boring and nonsense taunt that it is.
The most cringe-worthy thing a white person can say is “I’m not racist.” It is even worse than apologizing because everyone recognizes it as desperate pleading on their terms.
As for blacks preferring to live under black rule, I don’t think that it is quite right. They like to live in nice white-run countries but with plenty of token blacks in politics. If they live in a black run country they give up the power to claim victimhood/”racism” and reap the benefits that are their lifeblood. Otherwise they would have emigrated out of the United States years ago.
That’s right. The word “racist” has been overused. It has become a meaningless vulgarity.
Blacks prefer to live under White rule. It gives them prosperity and freedom, which they lack in places like Zimbabwe. (They were better off when it was called Rhodesia.) Then they can call everyone – “racist.”
Never will blacks emigrate in large numbers, unfortunately. They’ve got it too good, here.
That’s the gist of it. Nothing could be more obvious than that blacks on their own wouldn’t have electricity, running water, medicine, or the clothes on their backs without whites. It’s time to stop wasting time answering these blacks and prepare to meet them on their own terms (not ours), which amounts to warfare in the streets. I don’t know about the rest of you, but I’ve had it with these parasites making threats to exterminate us if we don’t let them turn America into South Africa or Zimbabwe.
“‘Racism’ is anything the speaker doesn’t like” is usually what I say. Or else, if it’s glaringly obvious, I just taunt them and say, “Cmon, man admit it – you hate white people. You can say it, It won’t bother me in the least.You just hate white people. Say it, it’ll make you feel better.”
I have gone on like that for 20 minutes. I always put them on the defensive. Now, I admit, I’m too cowardly now (10 years and more ago, not at all, but I’ve had a stroke, and am not the tough guy I once was, physically that is; mentally I’m sharp as ever). When I was younger I would never give in on anything. “Why shouldn’t the white man run America?” I said at a party to an uppity groid back in 1999. “We founded it, we built it, it’s MINE, man!” etc. But back then, no one ever messed with me physically unless he was a linebacker or something.
It’s really all about backbone. Whites are so weak today. Yes, a huge part of that is government directed anarcho-tyrannical oppression of whites. But even apart from the officially sanctioned oppression, whites have more room to stand up for themselves than most are willing to take. No one has to go full Greg Johnson. White nationalism is not advised as a rhetorical strategy for most whites. But not being a whimpering abused dog is also unnecessary. And if standing up for basic truth – that you’re not a racist (OK, you ought to be, but not publicly just yet, not until more whites have been awakened), but you are a man of honor proud of your nation and heritage (I use that line all the time) – gets you harassed or even fired, then you should find another job anyway (and always live beneath your means; cultivate inexpensive hobbies and lifestyles; save money, even if you’re doing fine at any given moment; and don’t get emotionally invested in your job, unless you’re either a technically highly skilled person (in which case you will always find work), or professional white nationalist!). Money = freedom.
The final line here “Money is Freedom” is indeed the best weapon that Whites have against racism You don’t have to say a word, just vote with your wallet. And your feet, if need be. “Vote with your wallet” is what I believe Ms. Hill was trying to say, and she is mightily aggravated that Whites have more in their wallets to vote with. So — the best way to fight ‘racism’ is to totally ignore it, and instead spend your time and energy earning and saving money. With more money in your wallet, you can float above the madding crowd. You can move when things get really threatening, though Portland is no longer a refuge. This does not mean you can stop WRITING! Or SPEAKING OUT in proper circumstances that won’t get you killed (or jailed, as Greg Johnson was). Or spreading the truth far and wide among those who you deem ready for the truth. I worked 50 years and squirreled away bucks right along, so I can leave town in a New York minute if need be, though I’d have to leave my books behind — yikes! — it would take me two days to squirrel all of them! So, with Lord Shang above, I say “Money is Freedom”, and even the raucous Ms. Hill sees the light in this. But WE are the ones that have the intelligence and wits to ‘make it so’, so we are obligated to carry the light.
Good advice from the author, Spencer Quinn. When a black or jew emits charges of “racism” or “white supremacy” – it’s just a scam. Don’t fall for it. Never deny it. First, ignore it, because it’s a lie. Then, respond with observations about “black supremacy” or “jewish supremacy.” Also use “black privilege” or “jewish privilege”, depending on the context.
They might respond with censorship – a favorite tactic. But that is an admission of defeat. These days, we get a lot of censorship from judeo-communists.
Judeo-Communist! I’d never heard it put like that before, but of course, that is what it is! Marx was of Jewish extraction, though probably not a ‘practicing sort’, and was the first, absolutely pure Communist — he wrote the book on it! And that, combined with Anarchism, is what we are seeing in the streets today. And racism is just the excuse for Leftists to tear down the Western civilizations that they hate — racism can actually be SEEN in BLACK and WHITE.
Well, Marx was an exceptional Jew, I don’t think there’s any denying that no matter what angle you look at it from, but most Jews I met weren’t communists, and most were opposed to it, plus countless Jews fled the Russian empire after the the October revolution so I don’t really buy into that association. Overtly capitalist Jews have done a million times more to cause our current predicament than old Marx did, and his side of the iron curtain is
looking a lot better than ours right now.
Option 5: Ask them how you can be non-racist. I.e. what do I have to do or not do so you will not call me racist.
Prediction: They will probably answer there is no way out. You will always be racist.
Which of course means only one thing: separation.
Asked whether I am “racist” (I am White.), I replied, “I wouldn’t know because I couldn’t care less.” I stand by that. I decline to be rude to another person simply because he or she is of another race. But then, so do I decline to mix my affairs with those of another person, regardless of race, to the extent I can avoid doing so.
There’s a fifth option – don’t engage with the word “racist” at all. Laugh at the charge. Say “whatever” or “I don’t care”. Dismiss it as a slur that is only intended to demonize White people (because it is). Whatever you do, don’t give this word any power over you – because engaging with it is what gives it power.
The same is true of all their other charges, like “transphobe”. Treat these charges as meaningless drivel of no relevance. The object of all their charges is to get you to deny them and place yourself on the defensive or affirm them and mark yourself as evil. Simply refuse to give them any moral authority over you at all, because that is what they desire the most. It’s a rigged game and the only way out is not to play.
Eventually, I’d like to see “racist” and all these other terms become badges of honor, but we can’t go there directly. These words need to be become powerless and those who use them regarded with derision before we can start to redefine them. The first step in doing that is showing that you just don’t care about their words or their morality.
I’m a former Leftist. I could teach a course on Marx or Foucault, and I retain a great deal of influence from them. I know the academic Left from the inside and I have studied it in both formal and informal settings. I have known and been close with many Leftists.
I don’t think ethno-nationalists are going to get anywhere by pointing fingers and trying to identify the “real racists.” The truth is that the ideological influences on the Left are not stupid, and Leftists have an internally coherent story to tell themselves which really does succeed in showing how there are certain respects in which black people in the United States are systematically disadvantaged. The trouble is that they have not been exposed to or truly grappled with what I see as the single key premise for ethno-nationalists: distinct, ethno-cultural identities are intrinsically valuable entities worth celebrating, and they are worth preserving in the form of distinct ethnic political communities.
The beauty in this premise is that it doesn’t require any “us vs. them” thinking. The Right and the Left are simply talking past each other in these tiresome back-and-forth accusations of racism. The Right is concerned that European peoples will no longer be able to exist *as peoples* once all of their countries have become melting pots by ideological fiat. The Left has largely not begun to grapple with or understand this key premise at all, and when they’re concerned with racism, they’re concerned with something else: unequal political representation and power in a nation which is understood in advance to be decisively non-ethnic in its ideological foundations. They don’t yet see the promise that the key premise offers: it can reduce both intra- and inter-national conflict, preserve distinctive cultures, and allow us to all take a deep breath.
You can hang onto this key premise without trying to show that white or black people have congenital differences in their intellectual or moral capacities (I imagine I am in the minority here, but I actually expect empirical research within behavioral genetics–which is a controversial and rapidly expanding field at present–to show that many differences in social outcomes between races have socio-economic or socio-historical causes rather than genetic causes. Of course, the truth is probably a complicated combination of factors, but I personally find the Left much more convincing about this, and I think it’s compatible with the thinking of, say, de Benoist or Heidegger, who do not think of ethnic identity in reductively biological terms). Whatever the empirical outcome regarding this, though, I think it’s ultimately beside the point; the key premise does not require it.
You can hang onto this key premise without having to determine who the “real” victims of globalization are–in fact, it’s all of us! You can hang onto this key premise while happily acknowledging that plenty of human beings, of all races, are wonderful people with complex and virtuous characters. You don’t even have to assume that they are exceptional cases! You can hang onto this key premise without believing that George Floyd’s death was necessary, and without believing that people who are outraged by it do not have legitimate reasons to be outraged. The key premise offers a solution to all of these problems without any polarizing rhetoric that will (reasonably, to my mind, given the horrors of genocide and the outcome of WWII) alarm the Left and the mainstream. In fact, the key premise will actually find a lot of common ground with many discourses on the Left, but will push them in new directions which show the value in distinctly European ethnic nations.
On the one hand, this is all a meta-political strategy that I’m offering, but on the other hand, it also just seems to comport better with the truth than finger-pointing does. I don’t have any enemies. I just think that the history of political struggles ought to end in a global community of distinct ethnic nations.
Google the Kalergi Plan of White Genocide. That’s the Plan, the Template that all the groups are working off of and why they get funding. There’s no money in what you’re endorsing. And no excitement for Blacks who want to take everything from us, perhaps even our lives.
Diversity is just a scam that works on Whites. They Enemy obviously doesn’t believe in it or desire it since it implies separation and tolerance. Again, decency isn’t profitable or fun. You believe in some vast source of Goodness at the Top that just is not there. They know what they are doing but they don’t want their followers to, necessarily, since idealism the raw fuel of the Left. And you haven’t seen through it yet either.
“And by opposing end them”?
It is a soliloquy to be reckoned with, it’s every line a question.
Do we need to oppose this sort of lab-grown polemical savagery in order to send it down the drain? It seems destiny will do this for us.
Maybe we have to differentiate, take it as given that meta-political struggle involves, on the one hand, jamming their politics, culture, etc., with sludge, truth, lies, opposition, support, deceleration, acceleration and so on, while on the other hand nourishing our own with honest, wholesome stuff. We build ourselves, we dissolve them, or help dissolve them.
Hamlet was torn not between two things, but many things. He knew too much, being the bard’s puppet, a poetic effigy. His tragic character flaw might be a lack of synthesis.
Your comment, though well-considered and presented, and evidence of a calm, coherent and rational intellect, nevertheless actually adds very little to our understanding. Most on the Racial Right, and certainly here at CC, are neither neo-Nazis (though we think the hysterically one-sided postwar discussion of the Third Reich is overwrought and requires extensive revision) nor even white supremacists (though as long as we’re forced to live with or under “diversity”, we certainly want white values and cultural habits to be dominant, and whites to be in legal, political, and demographic control). We are white separatists, or as you and others say, “ethnonationalists” (that designation is more appropriate to Europe, with its real, historically based ethnonations, than to the US, which at least since the middle of the 19th century had ceased being a New World Anglo-ethnostate with black slaves and free roaming Indian ‘hostiles’, and had become a white racial republic; identity in the US is overwhelmingly racial not ethnonational). We couldn’t agree more with your heartfelt paean to the psychic and aesthetic and, finally, moral value of historic ethnocultures and their attendant national identities. A world of ethnostates is precisely what we want, and the site editor, Dr. Greg Johnson, is perhaps the leading English-speaking proponent of this biopolitical position.
So your “single key premise” is very widely understood and shared, at least among contemporary white preservationists (WP). While the broader WP movement has certainly included advocates of racial genocide, most of us are not advocates of *any* form of racial or other aggression. We simply wish to be racially left alone – to be allowed to live exclusively with our own people rather than being forced by a tyrannical, teleological regime to accept unwanted “diversity” into our spaces, politics and lives.
In addition to our preference for homogeneity over diversity, however, we are also “defensive racists”. We do not initiate aggression against racial others, but we regard our racial community as being by far the chief victim of racial persecution and harassment (today, obviously, more than ever). We see ourselves as targeted and dispossessed by both the governing overclass, and the (nonwhite, esp black) underclass, with far greater threats to us or our progeny looming on the horizon. So beyond our ethnostatist musings and longings, we also seek to develop a white nationalist politics to defend white people and interests, and advocate for white preferences, for as long as whites are stuck within this present, persecutory, diverse and diversitarian, regime.
Our goal may be peaceful ultimate racial territorial and political separation (for those whites who want it), but in the interim, we “#fight for the white.” \
Most of what you have written suggests you have not fully emancipated yourself from leftist modes of thought. Much of it involves falsehoods or misunderstandings. Finally, I question how much you really understand about contemporary leftist political psychology.
First, leftists have not remotely succeeded in showing blacks to be systematically disadvantaged in the US, however “internally coherent” their “story” (le mot juste!) is; quite the opposite is the actual case. Blacks have innumerable privileges over whites, including academic and professional favoritism if they are even marginally intelligent, as well as government allowed, even abetted, control of the streets, public schools and prison insides. They have long been allowed to assault whites with far greater latitude than whites can victimize them, and post-Floyd, it seems they may harm us with near-impunity. If the modal black lives a lower quality life than the modal white, he has only himself and his race’s degenerate group behavior to blame. It is very hard to see what more whites could have done to try to uplift blacks over the past half-century.
Second, I dispute the characterization of the US as “decisively non-ethnic in its ideological foundations.” Just the opposite was the case, again, in historical fact, however much leftists have falsely persuaded themselves otherwise. The Framers made a huge and fatal mistake in not explicitly – Constitutionally – defining the US racially inelastically, as an exclusively white republic forever (subject of course to some future Constitutional amendment, which might well have passed during one of America’s periodic paroxysms of racial liberalism). But anyone familiar with the republic’s early history knows that is undeniably what they intended for our future. The first naturalization statute – as every prowhite now knows – explicitly restricted citizenship to “freeborn white persons”. There was never any hue and cry, at least until the Radical Republican race traitors post-Civil War, to make America a “diverse, multicultural society.” And those Radical Republicans were decisively defeated in this quest for the next century.
Third, it is beyond obvious – and a bedrock principle of the Racial Right – that the races, as randomly evolved mammalian sub-species of homo sapiens, are noticeably different in modal abilities, traits and temperament; that such differences are meaningfully determinative of life outcomes; and, as with all other human traits and their distribution, they are substantially genetic in ultimate origin. This is why different human groups exhibit consistent behaviors across the planet, as well as during different epochs and under varying social and environmental conditions. Indeed, the more racial groups are culturally homogenized, the MORE their fundamental genetic differences in character and group preferences become apparent. I first became aware of this via musical affinity in the 1980s. One could explain the “whiteness” of ‘country’ music as a cultural and historical/regional phenomenon; perhaps the same could be said of then nascent rap. But why, I recall wondering circa 1985 or so, was “hard rock” so white in audience attendance? And, later, it became obvious to me that even very self-consciously race-liberal whites basically did not find rap appealing. Most whites and most blacks, despite perfect musical freedom in performance and purchase, and even when reared in similar surroundings, just have different musical tastes – something which I realized must be ‘by nature’. I was already “awakened”, so it was an easy realization, though while I had hitherto viewed blacks as less intelligent and more violent than whites, otherwise I assumed they were mostly the same. Thinking about different tastes in pop music disabused me of this “cultural/environmental supremacism.”
Fourth, a small matter, but few on the racial Right think of ethnic identity in “reductively biological terms.” Obviously, ethnicity is mostly (but perhaps not exclusively) a product of shared history and upbringing. Psychological and behavioral differences between a Frenchman and an Englishman are of course almost totally due to culture and history. Race, however, is a taxonomically valid category of biological and socio-cultural analysis. Race is more determinative of modal group character than cultural environment or history.
Fifth, few white nationalists would deny that there are good and bad in all races, though I would assert that whites collectively are simply better than other races in terms of the classic and Christian moral virtues. This fact may not be relevant to the limited assertion that racial separation would reduce racial tensions and conflicts, but it does speak to our right to demand such separation – and indeed, to take up arms to achieve it. Forcing whites to share their homelands with nonwhites, esp blacks and Arab + South Asian Muslims, is an act of civilizational enervation, as well as ethnocultural and racial aggression.
Finally, the entire thrust of your comment is ludicrously reasonable and optimistic. Just think how nice it would be if we all lived in our own ethnostates! Well, yes, it would be. But leftists don’t want this; nor certainly do nonwhite invader-conquerors. Leftists are not animated by reason or justice, but, at best, by intensely held (and evil and empirically unrealizable) utopian aspirations; at worst, by a lust for power which uses nonwhite settler-colonialists as an electoral and cultural battering ram to dispossess traditional white societies, and win the ideological struggle for power via cheating and force rather than politics and persuasion. The nonwhite colonizers themselves likewise do not care about minutely reasoned justice for all. They care about racial power and stealing wonderful, civilized white nations from the whites who built them (sure beats working for a living!). Appeals to mutually beneficial arrangements and enlightened self-interest don’t work with savages – ideological or genetic – who hate you and want to kill you and take everything that is yours.
Society at all times is a battleground and boundless field of power relations. Diversity only greatly worsens this existential fact. Separation is best for rightist whites, whether nationalist or conservative or even Christianist or libertarian. It is not best for white leftists, who are winning via alliance with antiwhite diversity, or for nonwhites, who mostly want and need whites to plunder and exploit – to do for them what they are unable to do for themselves. Leftists and minority racists will never agree to peaceful separation.
Lord Shang, thanks for your extensive comment; this is very helpful in allowing me to better situate my own views. I’d probably like to say first that “emancipating myself from Leftist modes of thought” is not an operative goal for me, except insofar as that is what is involved in arriving at the truth. The extent of the overlap between those two goals remains, for me at least, to be seen.
In response to your first objection (regarding the systematic advantages of black Americans), I would distinguish between de jure advantages and de facto advantages. It is true that black Americans have many de jure advantages like the ones you describe. But many black Americans, due primarily to (what I believe are) socio-historical circumstances, live in food deserts, crime-ridden areas, etc., and have considerably less access to capital (both human and financial). The point of the de jure advantages is to rectify the de facto disadvantages. While I agree with you that whites have done much to remedy this situation, I also expect it would take quite a bit of historical time to work itself out. Likewise, I believe it would take much historical time (in addition to legal efforts) to lift whites out of poverty and empower them. The reason for focusing systematically on blacks, though, is the belief that the most salient explanation for the disproportionate destitution of black Americans is the historical legacy of slavery; in other words, it’s an extension of the logic of reparations. While I think separate ethno-states would be a superior solution to this predicament, I don’t find your argument that there are no important senses in which blacks are systematically disadvantaged to be satisfying.
Of course, as is implied in the above paragraph, my disagreement hinges on a disagreement about the relative influence of congenital and environmental factors in explaining differences in outcomes for black Americans. In response to your third point, it is far from obvious to me that the differences we observe are best explained by congenital influence, and I think that behavioral genetics is currently quite an unstable field that can only be invoked to reach tentative conclusions. We observe differences, we *infer* to the best explanation for them; we do not observe theoretical explanations directly. I don’t doubt that there are some genetic differences that account in some meaningful way for some disparities, but I think nurture plays much more of a role than your comment would suggest. And, ironically, I look to no one other than Heidegger’s account of human understanding and its historical situatedness to support this view. Of course, this is common among the Left. Without Heidegger, we would not have much of the emphasis on social construction that followed. Because human beings are distinguished by their capacity to embody in their behavior a conceptually-articulated understanding of the world, we should expect their behavior to be as malleable as their understanding, and we should recognize that their understanding is a product of cultural inheritance. (Also, I really like a lot of rap music. I attribute that to my enculturation).
I would also push back on the claims in your penultimate paragraph. Having been a Leftist (and still being intimate with many of them), I think your attempt to psychologically profile both the Left and non-white Americans (some of whom I also know well and respect) misses the mark pretty dramatically. Or at least, I have anecdotally seen it refuted again and again by the complex characters of people I have known well. I point back to Heidegger again, just to say that their political comportment is a reflection of their understanding (which was also my previous understanding) of our current political situation and what it calls for. If you want to change their behavior, you change their understanding. That’s what philosophical discourse accomplishes. And of course it’s a tall order, that’s a trivial truth about the nature of radical political change.
I do understand what your initial point was, that leftists have certain narratives which they consider to be credible.
To the larger discussion, I will add that Blacks who live in White societies are not disadvantaged. Instead, they’re tremendously advantaged, compared to those who live in Black-run societies (such as Haiti or sub-Saharan African nations). By all means, look up the statistics! The thing is that their activists have found that claiming to be disadvantaged is a great way to score guilt points and angle for more freebies.
I’ve heard the food desert argument, but I’m not so sure about all that. Simple observation shows that America’s Blacks are some of the best fed in the world! For those who wish that they didn’t have to get on a bus to go to the grocery store, maybe it was a bad idea to burn out the Korean shopkeepers who were bold enough to run businesses in Black neighborhoods. It’s true that they suffer from a high crime rate, but this is something that they’re doing to themselves. That’s also why integration doesn’t work; nobody who is familiar with how they behave wants to live around them.
As for the nature/nurture debate, I highly recommend looking into the IQ angle. It turns out that intelligence is about 80% inherited, and low IQ (even making comparisons within the same race) is highly correlated with social problems. Naturally, leftist narratives have to hand-wave all this as something else; nebulous and unfalsifiable stuff like “White privilege” and all that.
Beau, I think the comparison you’re drawing is not the one that Lefitsts want to draw. I don’t think any Leftist would deny that the economic standard of living (and access to other resources like quality education) is much higher in the United States than in other primarily black countries, even for black Americans. The point is about the average outcomes of black Americans vs. non-black Americans, and the extent to which those outcomes reflect the historical legacy of slavery and oppression. Black Americans are viewed by the left as Americans, and they view differences in outcomes as primarily the result of socio-historical factors (as I have been suggesting, I think there is much more to be said in favor of this view than seems to be acknowledged here). So, their measure of justice is not how black Americans compare to black non-Americans, but how they compare to non-black Americans.
Where are you drawing this 80% figure from? AFAIK, the extent to which intelligence is inherited is extremely controversial within behavioral genetics, and it’s difficult to speak on it with any authority at this time. The issue is that most of the studies that are being cited are correlational studies. We observe general differences in outcomes, but when we try to offer a theoretical explanation for the observed differences we find ourselves involved not in purely observational, but inferential activity. When it comes to determining the cause of complex historical events, we leave the realm of observation and enter the realm of inference/speculation (that’s not to say that all speculation is created equal, to be sure. Some inferences are valid, some are sound, others are neither). I’d be curious to see how this 80% figure is arrived at, but I’m skeptical at the outset. Usually, when I am exposed to scientific reports that claim such a concrete figure, I find that the inferences do not follow (or, often enough, even come close to following) from the dataset.
To offer some reasons for skepticism about analyses that (potentially) over-emphasize the role of genetics… it’s no secret that the countries where IQ is lowest have historically been less industrialized than countries where IQ is highest. It’s easy to assume the lack of economic progress is caused by low IQs, but I think a closer examination will reveal that things are at least considerably more complicated than that. Doing well on an IQ test is helped considerably by earlier exposure to environments rich in opportunities for cognitive stimulation (not to mention school-systems that give one repeated practice at standardized testing, which surely also helps one on an IQ test). It’s easy to underestimate the role that environmental factors play. Having intelligent and encouraging parents who have access to the kind of capital which accelerates cognitive development is a tremendous advantage. And given the inertia of human culture, it’s not surprising that putting in legal measures to rectify disparate outcomes should take a long time to bring about the desired effect. If you’re born into poverty with parents who aren’t fit to raise kids and who don’t offer you anything but a television (which will inevitably leave you emotionally and cognitively stunted); if you’re surrounded by violence and attitudes which view the mainstream culture as an enemy toward which you should be hostile; if the freshest food you can put into your body is Subway (and let’s be honest, “eat fresh” is misleading); if you don’t have great role models to emulate, it’s not surprising that it’s going to be difficult to climb your way out of that situation. Rectifying poverty can take a long, long time, whatever race you are. And in response to your point that blacks are the perpetrators of black-on-black violence, I think it’s generally (and trivially) true that poor people are the perpetrators of poor-on-poor violence.
(FWIW, I think it’d also be a mistake to assume that more intelligent peoples will inevitably live in more economically developed societies. Perhaps materialistic ways of life will be repugnant to smarter people.)
I’m not saying that genetics don’t play any role. It’s an open empirical question. But I think that Leftists still have a story to tell about blacks being disadvantaged in the United States that is not only internally coherent, but *correct*. Again, though, ethno-pluralism is not even on the radar for most of these folks, because their enculturation has a priori ruled it out. I have been arguing that it would be more effective to change public thinking in that respect by pointing to the shared advantages of distinct ethnic communities, rather than by trying to exacerbate hostilities between white Americans and non-white Americans, or by arguing the proper referents of the term “racist”.
Hans Eysenck is one of the researchers supporting the 80% heritability figure. There are others who have arrived at 80% as well, and also some with lower estimates. Either way, intelligence is meaningful, and Rousseau’s “Blank Slate” argument only goes so far. There has been a considerable amount of research, including studies normalizing for socioeconomic background. It’s true that there’s been great controversy. I’m sure you’re quite aware that the subject has been massively politicized, and that there is tremendous pressure to conform to the PC line.
As of now, we have had six decades of large-scale (and very costly) socioeconomic leveling programs. Actually, this made things worse, but that’s another story. The thing is that the promises that everyone was sold on about that aren’t working out. If blacks still can’t hack it collectively like the rest of us, it’s not your fault. Things don’t necessarily take ages and ages to improve. The Japanese Meiji Restoration is a good example – after exposure to American technology, they went from feudalism to industrialization in one generation.
As for the correlation of economic development in a country to intelligence among its public, that does raise interesting points. However, it would be a mistake to get cause and effect mixed up. Five thousand years ago or so, civilization was barely getting off the ground floor. Then what? Some places advanced, and cultures in various regions found their level.
Finally, after the latest round of rioting, looting, burning, and mass bellyaching, I’m pretty much sick of it. The time has come to work out a civilized separation.
Lord Shang; “Separation is best for rightist whites, whether nationalist or conservative or even Christianist or libertarian. It is not best for white leftists”; I strongly disagree with that statement, instead I insist that that (best) is precisely what it (separation) is for white
leftists, at least those whose primary aspirations are genuinely egalitarian, as opposed to
iconoclastic, and collectivist, as opposed to individualist. In earlier comments you
seemed to recognize this, I even used to think you might identify as Alt-left, or a least third-positionist. We may be a tiny fringe group, but we do exist, and seem to be on the rebound, partly thanks to you, anyway, I don’t consider your “leftists” real “leftists” in
the first place.
A.M., I’m new here, and am curious to find more Third Positionists. Are there any places online where they tend to gather, and, if so, could you point me to them?
You probably already knew about this one but there’s The Unz Review( Unz.com), which is dissident right, dissident left, just dissident. There’s National-Justice.com, which is socialist inclined as well as nationalist. There’s Therightstuff.biz. which is similar. There’s anything Nazi, though I’m guessing that isn’t exactly what you had in mind…. I really don’t know. You really didn’t find the best person to ask, I’m still looking for something myself, and would love to know if you know anything too. I don’t really identify as Third Positionist though, more like illiberal Alt-leftist, which there are some sites for, in theory, though in practice they’re all mostly just dominated by psycho Antifa types whose only reason for being against liberalism is that it isn’t liberal enough, and if that’s your
boat, mine, then you’re pretty much just screwed…
so take your pants off and welcome aboard!
A.M., thank you for this! As it turns out, these are all new to me. Outside of CC, I have little idea what communities there are. I will let you know if I stumble upon something more. You’re right that I probably don’t want to align myself with the Nazis. I’m not necessarily committed to Third Positionism per se; I’m mainly interested in ethno-nationalist views that are economically left-wing.
I ridicule the very word “racist”. An artist – one who creates art. Guitarist, pianist, flutist – one adept at the musical instrument. Craetion-ist, abortion-ist, Islam-ist; identifies/defines one’s belief system on a particular topic, discipline.
Race-ist. One who frames his/her worldview through the lens of race.
I’m so confused – aren’t you all proud racists here?
Not really, we just don’t give a…
I think you’re on the right path, but not there because I would respond like Jesse Lee Peterson. There is no such thing as racism. It just doesn’t exist. There are only good and evil people or behaviors. And she is definitely evil.
You just negated White Nationalism in favor of individualism. That’s what’s killing us. You next step is the eternal quest for Good Blacks. Good luck with that.
How about: “I am what I am, and I don’t give a shit what label you put on me”.
That would be my preferred response. Using enemy terminology is like fighting on terrain that they choose.
I think the best response is “Ok, so you have racial hatred for White people.” The greatest fear of the anti-Whites is that Whites will decide to separate from them. “Racism” and its offshoots are an effective weapon because it is racial hatred with camouflage and plausible deniability via abstract language. The carrot is held out to naive Whites that they can get forgiveness and redemption by working against their own people. My recommended response makes clear that one is not fooled.
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