Amerika

Posts Tagged ‘greeks’

Italians, Jews, Irish, Greeks, Slavs, and Indians: The Dual Identity of “Near-Whites”

Thursday, October 12th, 2017

As the age of ideology folds into itself, and the age of organic civilizations rises, identity politics moves from perceived grievances by minority groups against majorities to a desire to define the place where each individual belongs not just by race, but by ethnic group, religion, caste, region, class and family.

People want social order, which requires both vertical and horizontal hierarchy. On the vertical side, there is a leadership hierarchy, but also a trellis of social levels, called castes, which determines who shapes the culture. This restricts consumerism, modern art, and other crass proletarian supremacist political activities disguised as culture.

Within those vertical orders, there are also localizations, such as regional orientation or specialization into a certain profession. Each town has its leading families, and each person has a unique place. This is what made traditional society so elegant and comfortable: everyone knew what they had to do in order to be seen as good.

In contrast, the age of ideology is centered on the atomized individual and what benefits come to him. It seeks to remove obligations above the level of the individual — religion, culture, heritage, caste, logic — so that the individual alone can be the focus. To enable this, individuals form into something like a mob, gang, cult or herd called a collective which demands that every person be allowed individualism, and all of its members support this because they want that for themselves.

The age of ideology wanted to obliterate social order, such as hierarchy and caste, so that the individual could be the focus, but paradoxically this required creating mass culture in which the individual was atomized, or disconnected from anything but surface obligations like jobs, ideology and consumer transactions.

It ultimately sought to remove the possibility that the individual could be “wrong” according to social standards, which is troubling because it is by some being right and some being wrong that hierarchy is formed. The individual wants to be supreme, and to have his choices be respected no matter what their consequences are, which is why he demands “equality” and social subsidies through benefits.

Individualism is society eating itself. A civilization only functions when, at some levels, everyone is working toward the same thing, and this requires that our actions be classified as helping (good) or hurting (bad) that goal; if anything, the decay begins when we start expanding the grey area of “doesn’t help, doesn’t hurt” to be “good,” at which point people flock to that because it is less of an obligation and therefore, more efficient for them and allows them more time, energy and money for individualistic pursuits.

Without social order, we cannot have identity, because identity is multi-layered — race, class, ethnic group, religion, caste, family, region, calling, philosophy — and if those become wholly arbitrary, they cease to have meaning because they do not have consequences. If you can be anything you claim to be, then that identity becomes decoration and is detached from reality.

As part of that, the question of the duality of race and ethnic group arises. Races are descriptive categories for clusters of genetic traits; so are ethnic groups, but these can occur within a race or as hybrids of multiple races, with those two types converging at some point. The term “race” is confusing because it is applied to root race, ethnic group and ethnic hybrids without distinguishing them.

This leads to confusion when someone is a member of a race, or a hybrid of that race, and therefore retains both that ethnic identity and the larger racial or continental identity. For example, Italians are Europeans, but they are hybrids of Western European (“white”) and Mediterranean, Asian and North African elements. As a result, they are both European and not quite white, hence “near white.”

Jews, at this point, resemble the Italians in the percentages of white and Other that are mixed into them. After years of dwelling in Europe, they are mostly European, but also have Mediterranean, Asian and North African elements — including Turkic and Armenid, which gives them a unique look — in them. They both see themselves as white, and as something more than white, which is their ethnic identity.

The Irish, a popular but controversial topic on this controversial blog, also show influences of Semitic and Iberian mixing, which gives them dark features and facial shapes closer to those of Arabs or Jews than Western Europeans.

Greeks and Slavs come into play too as Asiatic mixes. The term hapa refers to one type of Asian-Caucasian (or Eurasian, a term also used to refer to the territories in Eastern Europe and Turkey that divided Europe from Asia) mix, and both Greeks (Turkic) and Slavs (Mongolian/Han) show the influence of Asiatic races, much as Italians and Jews do.

For example, we can see the Asian quarter of Slavness here in this illustration of genetic differences:

That orange stuff creeping in from the top is not an error; it matches the orange of the East Asian groups to the right. In fact, generally speaking, when a European empire fails, what remains is a Eurasian population with a third-world style lack of hierarchy except for a strongman leader, which seems to also be the desired Communist model of the Left.

We see the same thing in Greece, Rome, Kiev, and across Asia. Europeans made great civilizations, which collapsed, leaving Eurasian peasants squatting in the shadows of great monuments, unable to replicate the greatness that came before them. Asiatic admixture is the death of Europe; it also is something we do repeatedly when our societies are failing.

For this reason, our Western European ancestors did not consider near-whites to be whites, but remnants of the past with whom admixture would lead to a loss of what makes us Western European. As we look at the surge in moonfaces across America and Europe, it appears that they were right: even small amounts of trace admixture destroy whatever is Us in people and leaves behind a different race that is not as competent.

Even more, near-whites have a dual identity which leads them to be white when convenient, but otherwise, to identify with their ethnic group:

Greg Morelli, the owner of Max’s Deli in Highland, Illinois, praised the shooting of “white people” in Las Vegas. Does this EYE-talian Greg Morelli know that he’s considered “white” by blacks.

I get accused of being a race-traitor, which I find humorous. I don’t understand the term, but must admit that seeing a white guy something as stupid as this does make a person take pause.

Does it? You can bet that Morelli will identify as white when it suits him, but otherwise take the outsider perspective afforded by his Italian-ness. The same is true of the Irish, who often seem more proud of being Irish than being American. It is hard to blame them for this; they recognize that they are something unique, but also, something that cannot be the dominant Western European strain.

As we dilute whiteness to become politically convenient, because every modern person thinks himself intelligent for cultivating the biggest personal army that he can, we should consider extending it further. Jews are mostly white at this point, at least as much as Southern and Eastern Europeans. Indians, who have a Caucasian paternal line, could also be included. Heck, just blend all Caucasians together into a round-faced race, and in another five hundred years, you will have people who look like today’s Asians.

In the individualistic times of the age of ideology, inner traits like racial consciousness, intelligence and moral character were deprecated in favor of living through external assertions, including personality, that valued “equality” because it separated the individual from any order larger than that of individuals socializing. That order failed, and now we are entering a new era of organic identity.

White people do not understand diversity

Wednesday, December 30th, 2015

o-MANET-900

White people do not understand diversity in the same way conservatives do not understand pluralism. In the happy view they have sold themselves, white people and conservatives see diversity as a type of meritocracy: everyone becomes one big happy, and then we each do what benefits us, working together toward the goal of our happy pluralistic society.

When this fails, conservatives and white people tend to rage at how unfair it is. How can these minorities and liberals not share this vision of our collective destiny? In that assumption of collectivism, conservatives show they have imbibed the egalitarian mythos and doubled down on it, applying its standards to itself instead of understanding the nature of pluralism and diversity, which is “every person — and tribe — for itself.”

Conservatives were shocked to see the lack of collectivist patriotism from students at Yale University (now a third-rate college, apparently) who were demanding special treatment for themselves as divided by ethnic groups. To conservatives, this was segregation and a class system all over again, and so they criticized these liberals using liberal rhetoric:

As students saw it, their pain ought to have been the decisive factor in determining the acceptability of the Halloween email. They thought their request for an apology ought to have been sufficient to secure one. Who taught them that it is righteous to pillory faculty for failing to validate their feelings, as if disagreement is tantamount to disrespect? Their mindset is anti-diversity, anti-pluralism, and anti-tolerance, a seeming data-point in favor of April Kelly-Woessner’s provocative argument that “young people today are less politically tolerant than their parents’ generation.”

The problem here is that the liberals and minorities are right.

Pluralism does not mean “E pluribus unum” (out of many, one) as conservatives surmise. Instead, it means that every group keeps its own standards so that it can maintain its own self-interest. This is the nature of pluralism: it is to agree to disagree, not to agree to work together toward anything, least of all the kind of pro-America Horatio Alger nonsense that conservatives usually babble in public.

White people do not understand this, mainly because — as in all things — the left two-thirds of the cracker Bell Curve statistically drown out the one in five people who can understand the issue and the one in a hundred who can analyze it to a solution. In the white mentality — dominated by college students, clerks and suburban women with too much time on their hands — pluralism is the answer to “why can’t we all get along?” In their view, it means that we all tolerate each other, and then act white as a means to the end of having the white society that people claim to enjoy.

In reality, there is something more important than convenience and it appears unvocalized in all people: the need for control over one’s own destiny. For minorities, to live in a white society even if they control it means to be servants of someone else’s dream and a defeated people in someone else’s kingdom. They need an identity of their own, including institutions and leaders, and this informs their definition of pluralism, but owing to their liberal ideology, they cannot see how this means that diversity ca never work — just as the honkies cannot.

History as always shows us an answer, which usually involves the grim fact that it takes centuries to see the consequences of any act. Media establishments were amazed at how relaxed Caucasians are at becoming a minority in their own lands:

In the early 20th century, Congress, backed by the “science” of eugenics, restricted immigration by the “races” of southern and eastern Europe, which were generally viewed as inferior stock. Madison Grant’s 1916 book, “The Passing of the Great Race,” argued for Nordic supremacy to maintain the nation’s stature. A 1917 law created the Asiatic Barred Zone to further curtail already limited immigration from most of Asia and the Middle East. And in 1921 and 1924 new immigration restrictions were imposed to privilege admission to the U.S. of immigrants from Germany, Ireland and the U.K. and to reduce the flow of most others.

Current resistance to nonwhite immigration — including opposition to the legalization of undocumented immigrants who are already here — is weak by comparison. According to a December Pew Research Center/USA Today survey, 70 percent of Americans supported legal status for undocumented immigrants living in the U.S., with 43 percent also supporting a path to citizenship. Specifically among whites, 64 percent said undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally if certain requirements are met.

To Caucasians, diversity means that we just keep on truckin’ the same way we always have, but now we have ethnic restaurants and smart black hacker friends like in the movies.

In reality, the American nativists were correct all along. Diversity of any form destroys our control over our destiny by destroying our identity. After that point, there is no unity, only a sense of living in a place for convenience. Pluralism breaks down into each person doing what they want except where obligated, a kind of “anarchy with grocery stores” plus the jobs to pay for those groceries and buy your way into a gated community apart from the 80% of your society that is now a multi-cultural war zone of urban decay.

In this way, diversity takes us to a lowest common denominator. This was apparent to our ancestors. What intervened was 150 years of liberal propaganda based on the successful media blitz before the Civil War, in which the “new Americans” — Irish, Greek, Italian, Jewish, Slavic and lawyers — were convinced to beat up on the old Anglo-Saxon establishment in the South using slavery as a moral blank check. This missed the fact that starting in the 1830s, nations began abandoning slavery because technology was making it obsolete, and that the South was already phasing out slavery but did not want to take a single massive economic hit — or create diversity by freeing slaves.

Think through the logic tree of diversity. Different groups will either assimilate each other, forming a miscegenated substrate like we see in most third world countries across the globe, or will Balkanize, which is the minority view of pluralism seen above: each race segregates, gets its own facilities and institutions, and its own rules to protect it from the others. This will regress into ethnic warfare and end in mass assimilation.

Diversity means genocide. It will destroy whites, yes, but it will also destroy all minority groups and leave behind a less-capable tan group. Much as it was used as a weapon against Anglo-Saxons, who were genocided by liberals using “near-whites” from Ireland, Greece, Italy, Eastern Europe and Israel as a biological weapon to adulterate and replace the Anglo-Saxon population, it is now being used against whites.

This fits the pattern of liberal takeovers of society: liberals seize power, and all are afraid to oppose them because liberals have good intentions expressed in equality. Liberals then destroy any populations that have any beliefs which might come before liberalism, starting with the churches but extending to passive-aggressive ethnic cleansing. In the end, what is left is a 90 average IQ population that permanently votes leftist, and a country with no future.

But this remains unknown to whites. They trust their television, and they trust white liberals, who have led them on like a bull charging at a cape by allowing whites to have their illusions about what diversity is so long as whites support it. Now that the cape was been whipped aside yet again, whites are circling around for another charge, convinced that the square of red cloth, or minorities demanding pluralism as it is — and not the matador in the Che Guevara t-shirt — is the source of their frustration. Not surprisingly, this too will fail for them, just as it is intended to.

The great Mexican race war

Friday, December 18th, 2015

keep_moving

Anyone remember the Mariel boatlift? Cuba, having gone Communist, hated the USA. The USA, being saps who are ruled by cynical lawyers instead of people with thinking capacity, decided to allow in any Cuban who managed to touch US soil. That oft-derided “feet wet” policy prompted many Cubans, who wanted to flee the life-sucking void that Communism creates, to hop into rafts made of junk and traverse the 90 miles to Florida.

The scheming Reds in Cuba retaliated with a policy of their own: they dumped their prisons, mental hospitals and pedophile wards onto boats and sent them to the USA. This allowed them to both remove an expensive social program, and revenge themselves upon the Great Satan by shipping it human refuse. (And yes, if you wept over the “tards are not useful” article, you’ll cry over this one, so log off now).

A few years later Mexico began doing the same thing, except to enable its race war both on its own people and on the USA. Americans tend to think of “Mexican” as a race, but it is not; it is a nation-state, or “political,” identity. People in Mexico are either purely Spanish-descended (criollo), mixed of Spanish blood and Amerind heritage (mestizo), of pure Amerind origin (indio) or a hybrid of Spanish, Indian and African (pardo). Saying someone is “Mexican” is as descriptive as saying “He lives in Los Angeles.”

How did this come about? The Spanish conquest of Mexico was not strictly a conquest. It was actually class warfare: a few hundred Spaniards came to the new world, and became the touchstone for class revolts against the Maya and Aztec empires. These empires had vast populations of serfs of low intelligence and initiative, and those populations had prospered under the regimes while the leaders, now bored of playing babysitter to a herd, had declined. With Spanish weapons and indio slave masses, the elites were overthrown.

The result is that you do not find any of the Aztec or Maya higher castes extant anymore. They were killed during the revolt, or raped, murdered and driven out afterwards just like whites in South Africa. Instead, Mexico is populated by the descendants of those slave people, the Spanish who came as colonists, and the African slaves imported for its industry. There is also a smattering of Chinese blood from laborers, and traces of exiled Moors and Jews from Europe.

What this translates into is another dysfunctional diversity situation which explains why Mexico is in perpetual third-world status. The Spanish-descended control most higher functions, with the mostly-Spanish mixed making up a middle class, and then there is a vast population of impoverished, low intelligence, illiterate peasant indios. Every time an election comes along, they can be counted on to vote Communist like virtually every other third-world group.

Naturally this causes tension in Mexico’s middle and upper classes. Life would be better for them without these indios, or at least with fewer of them. And then they saw the Mariel boatlift, and it dawned on them: send the indios to America. The dumb saps will accept them if they so much as put a finger on American dirt because America’s bon-bon eating leftist useful idiots want people who will vote Communist every time.

Mexico had the perfect cover. None of its public institutions function anyway, and when they do, it is while shot through with corruption like a syphilitic corpse. The ruling groups made it be known that a good life existed in America, and then informally yanked out a few support structures. When Mexicans started pouring over the border, and the Mexican authorities shrugged and went on siesta, no one was exactly surprised that a Mexican institution failed to act.

This was a different form of immigration. For centuries, Central American Amerinds have been trying to get north. Their first opposition was from North American Amerinds, who correctly intuited that to allow in the horde was to be ethnically cleansed and replaced. The second was from the people who built America, the Western European settlers, who saw the same thing and drove off the Mexicans in a series of wars, only to have Mexicans return as raiders under Pancho Villa, a Communist at heart who saw his people would support him in a life of rape, murder and theft from people smarter than himself.

The new Mexican immigration takes on a different form: Mexico is like all countries heading into or staying in third-world status, bottom-heavy. It has too many lower intelligence (which correlates with low initiative, a.k.a. siesta and cerveza living) people and they have shifted its Bell Curve to the left. The elites in Mexico, especially after disastrous Communist guerrillas and electoral victories in the 1980s, needed to get rid of some of their underlings. Corrupt low-caste American industrialists wanted cheap labor. A match made in heaven!

Not really. For Mexico, the result has been some prosperity but the realization that while a Spanish-only Mexico might work, even a middle class of slightly mixed blood has produced different results than a Spanish middle class. In addition, families are divided and Mexicans in the USA feel a need to connect with the culture that has been stripped away from them by a border. They are right to do so, because although their language is Spanish, their habits and lifestyle are straight out of the Mayan years. They need an identity of their own and the ability to determine their own future.

In America, the problem is that we have now taken on Mexico’s third-world status by importing people of that genetic background. There are two essential concepts here that most Americans, especially upper class and female voters, do not understand:

  1. Nature beats nurture every time. People are what they are because their genes program them to be so. What you enjoy, your speech patterns, your handwriting and even favorite foods are genetically-determined. This offends our Christian, egalitarian view that each of us is the master of his own fate. We are actually complex chemical reactions which have some faculty of choice but usually follow our impulses and desires, which are genetically determined. As the Texas saying goes, “Poor people have poor ways,” and so do more successful people. It isn’t white privilege that 110 average IQ people with discipline toward an ideal built a functional society, and the 80-90 average IQ third world built mud huts and burned witches. Importing third worlders here means that, no matter how much you “Christianize” them (or the modern equivalent, education and entertainment), they will keep doing what they are programmed to do. And your country will become third-world.
  2. Your skin is your uniform because all people act in self-interest. Liberals think that they can “explain away” ideas and then have them disappear because their liberal friends no longer mention them. The rest of the world realizes that identity is important. Every group on this earth who is Other, or not-Us, wants to invade and take over, stealing our stuff and impregnating our women. This is the way of the world and Darwinism. Identity provides groups with control over their destiny. With identity, a group can not only exclude others but have its own direction, values and culture, which is how it governs itself, since government always erodes to third-world levels as Americans are discovering. Mexican indios are acting in self-interest: the Americans are too stupid to oppose them, so they can invade — peacefully at first — and then take over through superior numbers.

Americans do not understand this because our own diversity problems predate Mexicans. First there were the North American Amerinds, with whom we coexisted until they began raping, killing and stealing. At that point, we were forced to defeat them, but then our diseases genocided them, and we keep the remnant drunk on government gin on reservations. Next there were our African slaves who we bought on the open market and kept in better conditions than those in China, Arabia, South America and Central America, but then left hanging around in a perpetual third-world state because with their identity destroyed, they could never control their destiny and thus were left dependent on their former slavemasters.

Finally there is the issue that few will talk about, which is “white” diversity. As our cities grew, we began subsidizing lots of lower-intelligence people with safer living, constant food and easy jobs. These demanded luxuries in turn and, using the suicidal function of the vote, elected to import “near-whites” from the areas of Europe that were mixed with other races. The part-North African Irish, the part-Asiatic Italians, the Turkic Greeks, the part-Arab and Asiatic Jews and Eastern Europeans, and part-Moorish Spanish became residents here as well. There is nothing wrong with those populations by themselves, but much as nature trumps nurture in third world status, it also explains the differences between Western Europe and its Eastern, Southern and Mediterranean counterparts.

With the rise of “white” diversity, America became colorblind because Paddy O’Malley, Chaim Abraham and Antonio Milano got upset when people mentioned differences. Government, always eager to play the profitable fool, got on the totalitarian bandwagon by demanding we all treat each other as equals and be forced to associate with each other, starting even before the Civil War. Since the Western European (called “Anglo” for short) organic power structure resisted, government attempted to destroy them, first with a Civil War and later with regulations and affirmative action. This is the hidden race war in America, between “whites.” The counter-culture was part of it and finally won in the 1990s, deposing the Anglo and replacing them with the great mixed-race republic, a.k.a. Mexico-in-Waiting.

Mexico, having gone through that experience already, was looking for a way out of its third-world disaster status and sending the indios and pardos north seemed like a good idea. This is the hidden race war within Mexico, between Mexicans, but it has the same root as the American struggle: the first-world populations are trying to escape the third-world ones. In Mexico at least, the struggle is honest, where in the USA it is buried under layers of lies from democratic politicians trying to buy votes from idiots, the largest and growing group in America. The election of President Camacho was confirmation of the counter-culture victory of the 1990s.

In the meantime, Western Europeans everywhere are ceasing to breed because they realize that this war of first-world via third-world cannot be won under democracy. When the founding myth of your society is that everyone is equal, you can never turn away the Other, and then they come in, rape your women, outbreed and out-vote you and take over, promptly making the same third-world disaster in your nation that they claim they wanted to escape. Nature beats nurture, every time.

Recommended Reading