|
|
|
For a conversation with Homo deracinatus On Wednesday night the BBC Radio 4 programme The Moral Maze devoted 45 minutes to consideration of whether BNP members should be employed in public services. 7 minutes 40 seconds was given over to the (decidedly) cross-examination of Mr Lee John Barnes, who these days goes under the title of National Coordinator of the British National Party legal department. His performance was nothing if not combative, and earned him and the party some level-headed and fair praise from one panel-member, Michael Portillo. For breaking the BNP taboo, he will no doubt receive the due amount of contumely and criticism from former friends and colleagues. The programme can be heard for the next few days here, with Barnes’ contribution starting at 11 min 56 sec. Barnes answered (rebuffed, really) the less than neutral questions of panel members Melanie Phillips and Clifford Longley. The first question, though, came from the programme’s presenter Michael Buerk:-
Spacist not racist! Does anybody really believe that? Probably not. But, obviously, the party has not been able to defend itself against the charge of racism. I’m not constrained by the minefields of the political world. I’m interested in developing an argument that thoroughly nukes the “r” issue. Towards the end of last week I spent three or four days picking up not one, not two but three Guardian bans while defending the BNP membership against the deracinated hanging judges of the Comment Is Free website. That takes my CiF bans to sixteen, assuming I haven’t forgotten any of my earlier dramatis personnea. Does it get me in the Guinness Book of Records? Probably. Shouldn’t I be ashamed of this obsessive desire to force innocent liberal backs to the wall? Er ... erm ... aaah ... nope. I’m just shameless like that. Besides, this really only mildly obsessional effort is devoted to a perfectly noble cause: to test the intellectual quality and rhetorical strength of my current ideas against the best, generally, that the other side has to offer, and to refine them further in the light of that experience. This, in other words, is a work in progress. Now, I am not someone who is much interested in or motivated by waking up these liberals, though it is always interesting to see them thrash around and reveal their moral and intellectual emptyness. How they came to this sad and treacherous condition still fascinates. Elsewhere, James has posited the evolved tendency to morality that inhabits “the European mind” as a principal and intractible source of the problem. But what I sense from my exposure to these characters is not a fixation on genuine moral forms at all - that would be welcome. No, what I sense is a needy clamour for moral superiority, which is not quite the same thing. The focus has shifted somehow from the social function of moral behaviour to the personal function of status. In my view these people don’t want to pay the admission fee to high moral character ... don’t want the suffering, often voluntary, that builds it ... certainly don’t want the the control over self that evinces it. They want to pick up a moral phrasebook and speak the lingo right off. They want to cheat, to shift directly into the state of the perfected and free Man. They not only think that’s possible, they think that’s them. Being “free”, being an “individual”, being “humanitarian”, “principled” and stationed above the racist, sexist, homophobic history men ... that is the field of status rewards, complete with an oven-ready, pseudo-religious catechism of good and evil, that advanced liberalism, or neo-marxism, provides for them It is a journey to mock-fulfilment that involves very little - just an attachment to a few ideological abstractions that “everyone” agrees are terrible right and good, universally true and moral beyond question. The shallowness is breathtaking. But shallowness is tough to break down. A man of principle can at least enter into a discussion that is morally serious. You can’t do that with someone whose need is to display personal ascendency, and who sets up a body of hated regressives especially for the purpose. If I was interested in reaching these specimens of Homo deracinatus, I may well have to find a status system that trumped advanced liberalism. Mere argument will not do it. However, that 90% which is the rest of the indigenous population can be reached through argument. These are the general ideas that I have arrived at for the purposes of defining the problem and the solution. In their conception they are anglo-centric, of course. So white Americans, Canadians, Aussies and Kiwis will need to play around with them a bit to make them fit. The reversability of racism This damned word, so killing in the past but so over-worked now, is reversible. It can be made worthless through the bold assertion that changing us into another people through mass immigration is racist to the very core. It is racist to deny the existence of the native people. It is racist to reduce us to a culture, or a socially constructed mirage. It is racist to deny us our ancestral rights to our land. It is racist to avoid seeking our consent to mass Third World immigration. It is racist to hide the meaning of population change from us, or to tell us to “celebrate” it. It is racist to silence discussion and to lie to us about the nature of Sub-Saharan African and other Third World populations brought into our midst. It is racist to silence our dissent, in all its forms. It is racist to dehumanise us as haters, xenophobes and fascists. It is racist to impose politically correct speech and behavioural codes upon us. It is racist to indoctrinate our children. I’ve reversed the racism charge at CiF and elsewhere for a few months now and have been presented with no counter-argument. Our genetic distinctiveness The current crop of gene mapping studies show Europeans as distinct but related populations. They kill the argument that race does not exist. They kill the Lewontin Fallacy. As distinct peoples, we have the same right to preserve our distinctiveness as any other peoples anywhere - the same right, let it be said, as Tibetans, Yamomani and Palestinians whose survival the liberal-left backs to the hilt. Mixed-race people, in particular, do not like to hear that the host population is genetically distinct, and that European genotypes define European peoples. They don’t like to know that, say, Bantu admixture - most of them are African half-breeds - ends European distinctiveness and, with that, ends the European peoples. They tend to reify the National Socialist doctrine of racial purity and wave it at us. But it doesn’t help them. No people is genetically pure. But there remain large genetic distances between the major races, and such ancient admixture that exists in the European genotypes is not a licence to include someone with 50% Bantu ancestry today. The door to our being is shut. It has to be. If everyone is included, Europe’s children become as nothing, and their nationhoods are confirmed as mere labels. This we are bound by life itself to reject. We have the right to remain as we are, and not be changed into or replaced by other peoples. The legitimation issue From the outset, the political Establishment has studiously avoided seeking the people’s consent for Third World race-replacement immigration. The usual excuse is that all policies of government receive consent through the electoral process. But that does not hold water since this greatest of existential questions has been removed from public discourse completely, and substituted by a fait accompli in which, in my benighted country for instance, the Labour Party describes immigration in its 2005 election manifesto as merely “good for Britain”, and makes a reference to “controls” and “crackdown on abuse” as if it was protecting the people’s interests. The electoral process does not legitimise race-replacement. Only the specific consent of the public can do that. Without it, then, the process in its entirety (which in England dates from 1948) is illegitimate. The people have the moral right at any time to curtail it and wind it back to the status quo anti, or as near to that as is possible. And they have the right to maintain it there. Again, I have been presented with no counter-argument to this. The supremacy of indigenous rights and interests When the left ventures away from its internationalism far enough to consider the nation state, it proffers civic values as the basis for citizenship, place of birth as the automatic qualification for nationality, and nationality as the only content of nationhood. But in September 2007 the General Assembly of the United Nations drove a coach and horses through that when it approved the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (pdf). This brings into international politics the fine and just idea that indigenes enjoy certain unique rights which include:-
Now, it is irrelevant that the Declaration is formally restricted to archaic Third World tribes. Other native peoples are not less native for living in cities and wearing clothes. The Declaration is an extremely rare instance of modern politics meshing with Nature. For indigenes have a natural imperative to fight to hold on to their lands, and not to let them slip into the possession of other peoples. They are imbued with genetic interests which, at a secondary level, include territory as the guarantor of survival. These interests are of a profoundly different order of significance to liberal political values such as civil liberty, personal prosperity, equality, social justice and the pursuit of individual freedom. In Salter’s terminology, it is ethnic genetic interests - literally, the number of one’s distinct genes in the world outside one’s immediate family - that are the ultimate interests, and which we are bound by Nature to seek to protect and advance. EGI is not a politically communicable concept, though it is a true one. Even so, we can cleave to the rights ascribed to us in the Declaration, and tell the world that our survival is moral. The ultimate immorality is to do nothing in the face of a slow, politically engineered collective dying process. Distinguishing the organic nation from “The MultiCult” Another claim of the advocates of race-replacement is that it’s too late practically and politically to change our fate now. The egg-yoke and the white have been whisked, and cannot be separated again. But the analogy is false. Difficulty is not the same thing as impossibility, and separating this particular egg and yolk is merely growing more difficult. It will never be impossible. As it is, difficulty calls for a greater force of will. Since the only alternative on offer is an unending process of marginalisation, displacement, dispossession and deracination, that should not be a problem for a clear-seeing people. The need, then, is for clarity. The structure of the Establishment’s racio-political settlement is dualistic because native and immigrant are always divided - by genetic distinctiveness and by a political something that I will come to shortly. The nation that was mine at the time of my birth, when the few thousands of West Indians and Indians who had come to England were still said to be only a temporary imposition upon us, still exists. It is the organic nation of the English. It exists unsullied and possessed of all the potentials it had before 21st June 1948. It is the owner of my heart and the hearts of loyal Englishmen. It is not part of “multicultural Britain”. It exists in waiting for the MultiCult to be lifted off its neck. The MultiCult is the political single parent of the man of the future: Homo deracinatus. His skin colour is of no matter. It may still be white (if it is he says he doesn’t care). It may be brown or black. His defining feature is that he is our race-replacement. All over the West he is slowly and steadily replacing us, while our elites tell us it’s culture not race, and immigration is “good” and integration even better. On 9th December 1948, as Lee Barnes made clear to Melanie Phillips on Wednesday evening, something our parents fought for in World War Two came into being. It was the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It includes this provision:-
The race-replacement of a people by immigration is its physical destruction in whole or part, and is covered by Article 2c. The word “calculated” is not a barrier since political decisions have accompanied the physical destruction every step of the way. There is ample racial equality legislation, hate speech legislation, educational provisions, etc to demonstrate actus rea. There are hundreds of government ministerial statements - outright lies - commending assimilation and the benefits and attractions of “vibrancy”, or condemning “white racism” and “xenophobia”, all demonstrating mens rea. All the actions of the political elites of all parties in this area over these last fifty years - and we are talking about intelligent and thoughtful men here, backed up by an expert civil service - demonstrate a singular intent. These people cannot have failed to notice that the natives are being dispossessed and deracinated. There is nothing accidental about that eventuality. At the very least, we who are not Human Rights lawyers are morally entitled to presume genocidal intent, and to use the term as we will. And it is this genocidal intent that is our second separator - second to genes, that is - from the politically favoured Homo deracinatus. Man = kinship + individualism Man is not solely an individual being, any more than he is solely a collective or social one. Accordingly, nationhood is not an abstract principle; it is as legitimate and factual as the individual is. Every organic people, like every person, is involuntarily that which it is and, therefore, has the incontestable right to be itself and to live according to its own nature, without the malignant attention of Jewish intellectuals and Marxist ideologues. This right adheres to the general principal of freedom. Those who deny or oppose it are the enemies of freedom and of Man. Those who affirm it, however, are entitled to live by it and are made more fulfilled in consequence. We live enriched as members of our organic peoples, and we eschew the poverty of the MultiCult at every level and in every way we possibly can. Reclamation The ultimate product of all the above ... the great process of collective life affirmation, and the natural right of every European people who inhabit the land they have made, and which has made them. What was ours shall be ours again. That’s it. That’s roughly the material I draw on to shape debate with non-racialists. I would be very interested in your critique - especially the constructive elements! Comments:99002
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:51 | # Diamed: I read the comments on that takimag thread and it was the same tired old arguments trotted out again: 1) Christianity is against racism. Yes, the Amaleks (inter alia) were just “ungodly.” But since g-d doesn’t give the Amaleks an out, the ungodliness is immutable and inherent and thus a racial trait. Ergo, Judaism was and is blatantly racialist. As far as I can tell, Judaism contains THE pioneering work in racial nationalism. Nothing else even comes close, at least nothing I’ve seen that’s of any consequence. 2) There’s no proof IQ varies between the races due to genetic endowments! Two chinese people are less genetically similar to each other than a Chinese person and a Brit! I’m at the point where I just insult and heap scorn upon such morons. They’re a waste of time. Let them educate themselves. My only duty to these people is to tell them recess is out, and then move on to the grown-up conversation. 5) Not only eugenics, everyone here is secretly a nazi with dark plans to genocide all non-whites the moment we admit the truth science says about hereditary differences.</i> Cowardice. The number of white race-realists and racialists with actual malicious intent toward non-whites is infinitesmal. One has to be a moral coward, a misanthrope, or a fool to conflate divorce and violent crime. (sorry for the length that meldalla guy just steams me up) The guy’s a piece of shit. Beyond his (congenital?) lack of character and respect for the truth, he’s got more than just his reason or religion motivating him, I’d bet. Don’t bother. GW: I will respond on the question of the tactics for fighting the charge of racism. There are two paths open to us. One is to grasp racism with both hands and gladly proclaim its universality. This is Svi’s approach. The reason it isn’t mine is because the liberal-left believes (yes, religiously) and de rigeur in choice and in the supremacy of its own moral dicta. No, I use both. It depends on the audience. And mostly I use it in two contexts: first, as a shock device; second, as shorthand. In the first instance, it’s got to have an effect when one says unashamedly, “yes I’m a racist” (I always say it in a tone that suggests the person I’m speaking to (who has invariably just insinuated or stated I’m a racist) that everyone except him is racist too). Can’t do that with other sins. The effect is doubled when no one speaks up against you (which they generally don’t, in my experience, unless there’s an enemy in your midst); how often does that happen when dealing with actual, rather than fabricated, immorality? In the second instance, I’m just not interested in the semantic bullshit and want to move on to something interesting. The faileo-cons cannot cope with simple, factual arguments. The funny part is when they start calling me a liberal. Now that’s a laff. First, I could give a damn. Any similarities are purely coincidental, and even if they weren’t so what? I regard conservatives and liberals as of a piece in aiding and abetting the destruction of my race. Second, that’s a label that makes conservatives squirm (when it’s true), not WNs. Third, the only real way to piss off a WN (or at least, this WN) is telling lies. My skin’s way too thick by now to worry about a bit of name-calling. Conservatives call one another liberals as an insult, so I guess they think it’ll make WNs squirm, too. It doesn’t. They could gather every thing and idea labelled “conservative” and shoot them into the sun and I wouldn’t lose a wink. Scrooby: Only normal men hate it. Normal women warmly approve of it, as Simon Sheppard has astutely observed. Perhaps, but normal Euro women avoid it like the plague for themselves, putting white men to shame in terms of mate selection. Silver: You need your women more than anything. One WN woman is as good as ten WN males. An appeal to them based on the observation that they’re idiots isn’t likely to garner much support. True in some contexts, but racialism is a man’s job. Wishing for lots of women is about as productive as wishing in general. 99003
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 00:19 | # Just thinking, since we’re throwing tactics around, that maybe we should pay more attention to achieving the ostensible goals of liberalism. E.g., I’d be willing to settle for a long-term commitment to white-to-black wealth transfer IF it was a precondition to a white ethnostate. Liberals think their goal is justice, not destroying us. So we can peel some off the hegemony train insofar as we can separate those distinct goals. Eg, why must political diversity be destroyed to <s>destroy</s> preserve racial diversity? If white racism is the cause of black and brown failure, and this white racism doesn’t seem to be abating, wouldn’t allowing for black and brown ethnostates protect blacks and browns from the major obstacle to equality? Wouldn’t a white ethnostate protect non-whites by attracting all the haters into one place, far from history’s eternal victims? Anything we can do to sharpen the thinking of the useful idiots should be done. The useful idiots should at least be able to recognize that competing experiments could suss out the best designs. Sometimes I think couching WNism in liberal terms would work best. 99004
Posted by silver on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:06 | # Chaos,
You need to get out more.
Actually, that is what I was trying to do. Now that you mention it, though, hell yes it would be a fine to thing to shift away from “evolved parasitism,” if for no other reason than to wrench that meme from your fumbling fingers. This is an example of what I meant when I said hereditarian WNs think that accepting heredity being true entitles them to make all sorts of wild claims about what is.
The only thing I’d like to do with a monkey wrench is… oh, forget it. 99005
Posted by silver on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:09 | #
Ah, the I’ll-take-my-chances “solution” that is no solution. It really is amazing that someone who can see so clearly (which you can, I don’t deny that), can still manage to propose a non-solution. 1965 doesn’t solve the problem. Cut the emotional tie. You have no right to hector anyone for emotional feebleness if you can’t do it yourself. 99006
Posted by silver on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 08:23 | #
Women are biologically essential, svigor. One man can easily impregnate dozens of women. Women can only bear a few children before they’re spent. Apart from that, women would probably have a much easier job of recruiting other women. It’s insane, suicidal to ignore them, no matter how difficult the task of turning them.
Yes, you most certainly should.
Now this is a heartening development. You’re actually begininng to think, rather than just repeating the same old mantras. The issues involved are multifaceted and complex, and if you want to reach the promised land you’re going to have traverse them, not skirt around them to the good bits (race, whiteness), no matter how great the temptation to do so is. A good start in your case might be admit that despite what an anti-white asshole I may have seemed with some of things I’ve said, other points I’ve made, while you may disagree with them, are not entirely without their merits. Do that and you’ve left the cloistered world of easy online racialism and (re?)entered the realm of debating ideas with enemies, ie the real world, which is where change, even revolutionary change, is spawned. 99007
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 15:54 | #
The Jews decided around 1880 they wanted every Euro-race man, woman, and child on the planet Earth turned into a Negro. They wanted no Euros left, zero. They wanted only Negroes left where Euros once stood. Then they set to work. Now, after 128 years, they’ve nearly pulled it off. Just a little more time, and they’ll have gotten it. How did they succeed? Well, for one thing by NOT, that’s NOT, as in N-O-T, listening when someone in the year 1880 came along and, like Silver, said to them, “Ah, the I’ll take my chances ‘solution’ that is no solution.” They didn’t listen to that, and now they’ve got us where they want us unless we break free: almost irreversibly on the path to extinction. Totally ignoring Silver, I repeat: I want 1965 back, Professor Steinlight. You and your tribe stole it from me. I want it back and I will accept nothing less. I certainly sympathize with the Jews regarding the various difficulties they face in life, but NOT to the extent of endorsing the solution they want, namely the transformation of every white man, woman, and child on the planet into a Negro. Sorry, Professor, that’s a non-starter. Oh, but “you’ve got it already 90% pulled off?” Well that may be, but that doesn’t keep me from stating my position: winding the clock back to the year zero demographically: 1965. Oh, and with a little change from the way it was back then: I want Jews out of Euro countries. Permanently. Until they learn how to behave in a civlized manner and lose their inborn nation-destroying gene. If they can breed that gene out of themselves maybe we’ll reconsider. I said maybe: “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.” “Never again!” is the motto the Jews live by? Well, it applies to us as well: Never again will Euro-race peoples permit the Jews to gain power over them, then set about systematically, methodically harming them, destroying them, genociding them. NEVER AGAIN! So, my position is: I want the U.S.‘s 1965 demographics back and Jews out of the United States and out of every Euro-race country. Put that in your “solution that is no solution” pipe and smoke it, Silver. 99008
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:22 | # Women are biologically essential, svigor. One man can easily impregnate dozens of women. Women can only bear a few children before they’re spent. What does this have to do with WNism, per se? Women don’t need to be WNs to get pregnant. Apart from that, women would probably have a much easier job of recruiting other women. It’s insane, suicidal to ignore them, no matter how difficult the task of turning them. Don’t think it should be ignored, just think it’s mostly a waste of time because women aren’t wired this way. If WNism gets enough men, the women will show up, never fear. But at this early stage, worrying about a sex that is about as politically pioneering as Bantus isn’t a top priority imo. Ok, bit harsh, but you get my point; look at the frontier of…well, pretty much everything and its a sausage-fest. Now this is a heartening development. You’re actually begininng to think, rather than just repeating the same old mantras. Y’know, maybe your insufferable attitude is why you don’t get on with MRniks? Just a wild guess, no offense taken on my part but others might respond differently. Btw, I’ve mentioned this a few times over the years I’ve been into this (better part of a decade now), so I am repeating the same old mantras. Oh, and doing my own thinking is how I and probably most WNs got where they are today; never wondered why we’re such a cantankerous, disagreeable, stubborn lot? A good start in your case might be admit that despite what an anti-white asshole I may have seemed with some of things I’ve said, other points I’ve made, while you may disagree with them, are not entirely without their merits. Well I confess I tend to skip over your posts a lot, but yes you often have points of merit. It’s just, you’re always hip-deep in something with someone here so I tend to skip over the arguments involving yourself (I don’t come here for day teevee). 99009
Posted by Svigor on Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:27 | # “Never again!” is the motto the Jews live by? Well, it applies to us as well: Never again will Euro-race peoples permit the Jews to gain power over them, then set about systematically, methodically harming them, destroying them, genociding them. NEVER AGAIN! That’s a complementary tactic, co-opting the left’s language. Nothing new here, many of us have mentioned this kind of thing (was it Bo Sears with the Uncle Tom thing? Pretty sure it was a Resisting Defamation guy). “Never Again” is a particularly good one. 99010
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:32 | # The following observation by Steve Sailer explains, when transplanted to the Eurosphere context, 75% of Eurosphere history since 1860 and 95% since 1933:
The Eurosphere’s Not Talls, the Jews, have, since the 1860s in the Russian Empire, centered nearly their whole existence around attacking and bringing down the Eurosphere’s Talls, the Euros themselves: for a hundred-and-fifty years Euros have been under non-stop ethnic attack in a tribal war no different from those of Eastern Africa and everything else — deconstructionism, the Frankfurt School, Straussianism, Jewish socialism (i.e., Marxism), XXth-Century leftism, women’s lib, po-mo liberalism, race-denial, homosexualism, queer theory, and so on, and so forth, is just blah-blah-blah spouted because people don’t want to admit a Not Tall vs. Tall tribal war is what’s really going on, just like in Africa. 99011
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:03 | # Very disappointing log entry on race, by Prof. John Hawks, very inferior work: http://johnhawks.net/weblog/topics/race/hooton-plain-statements-1936.html It remains to be seen what sort of entry he posts next on this subject — but I fear the worst. 99013
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:05 | #
Change that to “diaspora-Jewish socialism (i.e.. Marxism).” Jewish socialism in Israel is Jewish National Socialism, not Marxism. Marxism is the form of socialism the Jews insist on when they live among the goys. When they live among themselves in an entirely Jewish country they want Jewish National Socialism, not Marxism. And they’re right to want that, just as the Germans were to want their version of it in 1933. 99014
Posted by Statement of the Obvious on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:11 | # It’s a statistical near-tautology that two ethnic groups differ in mean height. 99015
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:35 | # European types include more southerly varieties who are less different from Jews in height, lightness, and a few other characteristics, whose nations the Jews don’t try so hard to topple and destroy, and more northerly varieties who are more different from Jews in height, lightness, and a few other characteristics, whose nations the Jews try hard to topple and destroy in a Not Tall vs Tall tribal war having, in part, the exact same psychological motivations of jealousy over physical and personality differences and so on as the tribal war between Hutus and Watusis in Rwanda-Burundi. In Rwanda the cognitive dominance lies with the Talls (the Watusis) while in Europe it lies, in an important sense though obviously not entirely, with the Not Talls (the Jews). So, that element is reversed. But there are other factors involved in Europe that sort of undo that reversal, such as traditional concepts of nobility, the Christian Gentleman, “fitting in white society,” and so on. The seemingly senseless and unprovoked historical Jewish antagonism toward the Euro inhabitants of Europe, especially the more northerly ones and their more northerly blood descendants elsewhere in the Eurosphere such as Australia and most pre-1965 North America, is a Not Tall vs Tall clash like between Hutus and Watusis. 99016
Posted by oligolatry, minorities as exemplars on Wed, 18 Feb 2015 14:57 | # Bend It Like Bennett: Genuflecting to Jewish Power
Post a comment:
Next entry: Secret Bases
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & NewsCommentsThorn commented in entry 'Trout Mask Replica' on Wed, 04 Feb 2026 00:45. (View) Thorn commented in entry 'Slaying The Dragon' on Tue, 03 Feb 2026 23:41. (View) Guessedworker commented in entry 'Slaying The Dragon' on Sun, 01 Feb 2026 18:47. (View) James Bowery commented in entry 'Slaying The Dragon' on Sun, 01 Feb 2026 17:55. (View) |
Posted by Svigor on Wed, 03 Dec 2008 23:05 | #
The trouble with this sort of thing is that the average descendent of European Christiandom will likely laugh at the idea that his co-ethny are his family. He feels nothing for those around him who aren’t actual family and friends.
I disagree. What about the father who discovers he has a long-lost son? The kid who learns he was adopted? The brother you never knew about?
He’s been taught to laugh at what’s good for him, yes, but that’s pretty central to our problems, no?
People tend to tacitly admit their inherent racial loyalty: “who should I feel more loyalty to, a white guy I never met or a black coworker who’s good to me?” The obvious rejoinder is that the person needs a reason to favor the black guy over the white guy, hence no ceteris paribus. Most WNs with two brain cells to rub together know that they’d side with a black over a white given the right conditions (I’d sell the honkey short in a New York minute if it meant protecting my racial kin; not necessarily as absurd an example as it might seem at first glance).