Critiquing racialism


Those who believe in the differences between human races and the importance of at least separation tend to call themselves racialists. This separates them from “racists,” who are people who dislike other races, and puts them into the camp of sane people who dislike diversity because it is inherently paradoxical and produces horrible results whenever and wherever it is tried, regardless of what racial groups make up the melting pot. In that perspective, history and logic — and looking outside the window — agree with the racialists.

Racialism however fails to adequately critique itself in part because it is trying to build up the largest following it can. That approach leads to greater numbers, but also produces a type of ideological entropy as each person re-interprets the belief in some unique way. That in turn erodes the group from having focused into being a generalized gripe session, which suits most people just fine as they do not want to actually do anything but would like to talk about what they would do, you know, if they could.

If racialism were able to focus itself on a single agenda, like liberals have done for years, it would have some power. Instead it dissipates its strength in as many perspectives as it has members. Naturally, hammering out an agenda will make many displeased as it will force some pet issues to the wayside, and by giving momentum to analysis, will also explode some much adored fantasies. And yet, it is the only path to anywhere, so it is the route we must follow.

A good starting question is: Why do racialists focus so much on other races? In a time when our media fawns over every possible story on homosexuals, transgenders, women, the impoverished and any ethnic or religious minority, it seems foolish to follow the blueprint set by the liberal media. Further, it is disspiriting as it removes focus from the object — a healthy white or WASP ethnic group — and turns it instead to a fetishism of what other groups do. More importantly, it shifts focus from the object to be conquered, which is the illogical and deceptive policy of diversity, and instead scapegoats minority groups for what ultimately are the actions of white liberals. White liberals passed anti-discrimination law, the Great Society welfare programs, Affirmative Action and the Hart-Cellar immigration act. White liberals enforce shaming of racists and lead the call for the removal of Confederate flags. The enemy is white liberals, or at least white liberalism.

Further, a philosophy comprised of race-isolation alone becomes a type of ethno-bolshevism (thanks to Nick Land for that formulation). It eliminates class distinctions within whites and turns them into an ideological force, as if emulating Communism. Perhaps it makes sense to emulate the political methods of leftists, but not their goals, since any student of history knows where those lead. Under white nationalism, for example, whites are united regardless of ability and exempted from having to demonstrate evolutionary fitness, much like the reward-before-performance ethos of socialism. This movement also creates white victim privilege which results in whites seeing themselves not as conquerors and innovators, but ghetto-dwellers held down by the man. It turns a once noble group into a parasitic, revengeful mob just like liberalism does.

Not only that, but race as an organizing principle tends to drown out anything else. It does not change the underlying conditions which were the causes that got us to this point in history, where their effects can be seen in the manic racial egalitarianism of the left. It does not address the decay in social order and mental ability of our people that began long before diversity. Even worse, it acts as a surrogate for dealing with these problems much as the left invented class warfare and diversity as substitutes for addressing the actual problem of civilization collapse.

No sane person should object to reasoned discussion of race, including leaving the option on the table that diversity is inherently flawed and a destroyer of empires and (thus) should be replaced. At the same time, to go about an issue the wrong way poisons the well and removes the ability to have useful future discussions on the topic, which then banishes the topic to the dustbin of history for future generations. It is time for racialists to mature and face the decision that has hovered over them for many decades: do they really want to restore civilization, or merely complain about it and bully some African-Americans to make themselves feel better?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

9 Responses to “Critiquing racialism”

  1. Kat13 says:

    You’re absolutely right, its the decisions/actions of white liberals that have led us to the Marxist paradise we have today.

    • the decisions/actions of white liberals that have led us to the Marxist paradise we have today

      Well stated. In my view, this alone constitutes the threat to us: equality as a notion, and the white liberals/neurotics who support it.

  2. -A says:

    Are your observations about the behaviors of White Nationalists mostly from sites like Storm Front? If that is the case, I would like to think that those who are not keyboard warriors are more sensible. If they do blame black people for everything that has decayed society, it could be like it was with Dylan Roof: their first impressions of diversity were whining blacks and black-on-White-crime. They are never going to truly detach from this observation. It has to be made clear to them in a very direct way that White liberals made that happen. They do not care that it happened, they are fueling the next fire of similar events and they want more of it.

    As for refining and maturing White Nationalism, it very well could take care of itself so long as we follow your advice. When all liberal notions are removed from the equation, all liberals are going to leave. They will not all leave at once, some will believe that they can reform it but, they will eventually leave. It is also important to note what you said about fetishizing what the other races do like a combination of a fashion magazine and a gossip rag: the goal should be love of one’s race and love of one’s culture. The culture itself is more than blood and more than system, it is tradition and wisdom, and reverence of the past. Racial fetishists and the petite bourgeois who find blacks to be at the height of fashion will never understand it and the notion itself instilled in your soul will burn their flesh away like acid.

  3. Stephen Clay McGehee says:

    Excellent analysis. A key question asked is, “Why do racialists focus so much on other races?” Closely related to that is the matter of egalitarianism that knows no racial boundaries. I suspect that we can all come up with examples where we would rather have THAT person of another race as a neighbor than THAT person of our own race. It’s not just race, but class, religious beliefs, and a host of other matters.

    I am convinced that the vast majority of our problems would be solved in a decade or less by simply removing all laws – both civil and criminal – that prevent people from dealing with, living with, and working with people based on their own personal preference rather than what politicians have decreed. It should be my choice. While I much prefer being among those like me, there are some blacks that I would much rather have as neighbors than some whites, but that should be my choice.

    • I am convinced that the vast majority of our problems would be solved in a decade or less by simply removing all laws – both civil and criminal – that prevent people from dealing with, living with, and working with people based on their own personal preference rather than what politicians have decreed.

      Excellent concept, and a good rallying point. It would at least end all of this amicably. Great to see you commenting here.

  4. Kat13 says:

    Please bear with me as I am deviating a bit from the specific topic…
    Bluntly, this great country doesn’t have much time left and it doesn’t appear that any organized ACTION is being taken to protect it. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t see, hear, or read anything that contradicts that assessment.

    Let’s see, just within the past two weeks (approximately) we’ve had TPP passed and on its way to Obama’s desk for signature,
    we’ve had the capitulation by S.C. Governor Haley (followed by Walmart, Amazon, etc.) on the Confederate flag, and SCOTUS–in two separate rulings–protecting Obamacare and making same sex marriage the law of the land.

    Of course, much discussion on the internet, but is there and organized movement to take action–aside from “cottage industry” book selling, political fundraising, and conference attending?

    It seems that the only way things will change at this point is for millions of Americans to plant themselves in Washington D.C. for as long as it takes…

  5. […] more, it makes sense to separate Nationalism from “racism.” While any sane observer knows that diversity is the cause of racism, because when you put two or […]

  6. […] form of its failure comes from it being absorbed from within by Leftism, much as I argue that white nationalism became fundamentally Lefty just as National Socialism did. These systems fail because in the guise […]

  7. […] thinking that other groups are inferior and need to be subjugated by whites, and would be a form of “ethno-bolshevism” for white people; I oppose this because it violates nationalism because it is a form of diversity, and diversity, as […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>