If I were teaching a college course in naïvité, I would be sure to use this latest outburst from Guy White. For almost twenty years now, “race realists” of various stripes have been arguing that racialism can garner mainstream cachet in America by obsequious displays of philo-Semitism and fervent denunciations of the Nazis amongst us. When I first arrived on this scene ten years ago, I found this line of argument plausible, and I often used race realist talking points in conversations with others. But as time has passed by, I have found reason to change my mind. Now, I have little positive to say about race realism.
RR is nothing more than telling people what they already know but don’t want to hear. Honestly, who doesn’t already know that 1.) blacks are more likely to be violent criminals, 2.) that negroes are less intelligent than Whites, 3.) that affirmative action punishes Whites, 4.) that non-Whites are openly racially conscious, or 5.) that Hispanic immigrants are less educated than the native born? RRs act as if these were stunning revelations and that everything would suddenly change if these facts were acknowledged. Most Whites are already aware of these facts but don’t find them persuasive enough to embrace a reactive racial identity. By harping incessantly about racial inequality, RRs reinforce the impression that racialists are old fashioned white supremacists.
If that were not bad enough, much of RR doesn’t even seem to be true, in particular the conclusions that RRs draw from racial differences in crime rates. These statistics are all over the map across different societies at different points in their history. The tame Nordics of Scandinavia were once the ferocious Vikings; the ancestors of gelded American suburbanites were rough and ready frontiersmen. Russia is one of the most violent countries in the world, but it hardly follows that Belgians have a racial predispostion towards violent crime. RR’s gleefully argue that blacks are more likely to be violent criminals, but ignore the fact that the vast majority of blacks are law abiding citizens.
Racial differences in IQ, another major RR obsession, tends to cut both ways. Whites are demonstrably more intelligent on average than blacks and Hispanics, but this is nothing to crow about as Jews and East Asians tend to outscore us. Meritocracy leads directly to a Jewish/East Asian overclass hostile to White interests. The Flynn Effect, which demonstrates the malleability of IQ over time, is also around to permanently frustrate those who argue for the immutability of racial differences in intelligence. Undoubtedly, it will continue to inspire generations of leftist social engineering.
RRs always argue against affirmative action in the name of meritocracy. In response, leftists (correctly) argue that Whites benefited from centuries of affirmative action in the form of racial preferences in every aspect of life. Historically speaking, blacks were always the last to be hired; first to be fired. Most non-Whites were excluded from participating in our economy by our race-based immigration laws. RRs sputter and have no persuasive response to this line of argument. In basing their opposition to affirmative action on meritocracy, RRs are precluded from making the obvious identitarian retort: America was a white man’s country, and so what of it?
These people are always invoking white inventions to justify their white racial consciousness, but it is not at all clear how the latter follows from the former: only a small fraction of Whites are responsible for Western science and technology, and contributions from the White East are smaller still. During the Early Middle Ages, the West wasn’t the world leader in these areas that it is today. Educated people know this and this particular RR argument almost always invites this type of dismissive response.
In spite of their constant predictions of mainstream success and appeal, their steadfast avoidance of the Jewish Question and thrashing of the Nazis hasn’t produced any tangible political reward for the RRs. Jared Taylor, Ian Jobling, Lawrence Auster, and Guy White remain just as ostracized, despised, and ignored as anyone else on the racial right. For all his philo-Semitic noise, Ian Jobling’s White America remains a ghost town. He has been banned from Digg and YouTube. Sucking up to the Jews hasn’t produced any discernible change in their hostile attitude toward racially conscious Whites. Organized Jewry remains as committed as ever to its project of seeking out and destroying “white racism.”
A few years ago, Trent Lott lost his job as Senate Majority Leader for making an innocent remark about ‘Ol Strom Thurmond’s ill fated presidential campaign as a Dixiecrat. The idea that mainstream Republicans are going to cozy up to RRs if only they denounce Hitler and Nazism is a ludicrous fantasy. The Left has never attacked racialists or conservatives in good faith. If every Neo-Nazi in America were to disappear tomorrow, the Klan or the Confederacy (or some other stand in pasty face like Jim Crowley) would replace the Third Reich as the object of their opprobrium. We would still be lectured about the need to overcome the “legacy of slavery” and Jim Crow. As we saw in the Sonia Sotomayor hearings, Republicans can’t even get away with the most milquetoast assertions of White racial identity these days. They are not about to foolishly align themselves with unabashed racist bigots.
The Republicans are rapidly moving away from their previous stance on illegal immigration, affirmative action and multiculturalism. George W. Bush celebrated Kwanzaa at the White House and appointed the most diverse cabinet in history until that time. The Republican establishment fiercely opposed the nativists within their own ranks who argued against comprehensive immigration reform. John McCain, their last presidential nominee, was a champion of that particular issue. Michael Steele, the head of the GOP, isn’t sure whether he was an affirmative action pick.
Where does this leave the RRs? Dishonestly blaming David Duke, Stormfront and Adolf Hitler (who has been in his grave for over 60 years) for their failure to make political headway. It is always the powerless who a responsible for this state of affairs (a charge adopted from their fellow conservative losers), not the monied interests and well connected ethnic lobbies that the RRs apologize for and prefer not to discuss.
In doing so, the RRs have become just another obstacle in the way of a White racial awakening. Having learned nothing from the last 50 years, they are merely creating another ideological vehicle for Jewish mischief. The less they are heard from; the better off we will be.
For me, race realism is part of a larger attack on globalism, liberalism, capitalism, egalitarianism, general bullshit, etc. You are right that the “race is everything” crowd is one dimensional. In addition I would say the “race realists” I respect the most aren’t even affiliated with Jobling, Guy White, Amren and the conservative movement. They are paleocons who have adopted “whiteness” as part of their patriotism. That’s not me.
The race realists I admire are scholars like Dienekes and the Dodona crowd who openly study human genetic variation in an extremely quantitative and calculated way. Liberals like emotion and intuition, and I think they fear what quantitative study can do to liberalism. It’s basically the notion that humans can be treated like products on an assembly line or animals and studied for patterns. Libertarians and individualists find that very threatening. I know people are individuals but groups study is still interesting.
The fact that I talk about ethnic groups that define Judaism liberals find that threatening. They say “It’s a religion.” I say actually it is a mosaic split into a few noticeable Caucasoid ethnic groups. You’d be surprised how anthropologically ignorant people actually are both inside and outside of the wn movement.
I side with you on one point – appeals to reduce antisemitism because they increase mass support are the wrong strategy.
But I disagree with you on another point. Mass support isn’t the correct strategy. Gaining control over the powers of society, and I won’t openly say that it requires violence, is the correct strategy. The masses are controlled by the force put into place by leaders. Both Mao Tse-Tung and Hitler understood this and I could quote to prove it.
“I have little positive to say about race realism.”
I have much to say about race realism, but I fear I might be using a different definition than you are using.
Scientists who study such things as genes, athletic performance, and IQ are race realists, and they provide us with testable claims. William Shockley was a race realist, and he won the 1956 Nobel Prize in Physics.
There, I said something positive about race realism.
I think race realism is a branch of factual knowledge, not a branch of political advocacy. If you are trying to build a political movement, you would have little positive to say about the history of glassblowing, because it’s a field of knowledge, not a school of political activism.
“Most non-Whites were excluded from participating in our economy by our race-based immigration laws. RRs sputter and have no persuasive response to this line of argument. In basing their opposition to affirmative action on meritocracy, RRs are precluded from making the obvious identitarian retort: America was a white man’s country, and so what of it?”
Certainly not! One can be a race realist and still argue against making America into a nation of many races. William Shockley, famous for his co-invention of the transistor, would simply reply that while blacks lack the merit of IQ, all non-whites lack the white capacity for scientific creativity. Given the axiom, “America should have the uniquely white virtue of Shockleyan scientific creativity,” any race realist can abandon any meritocratic argument for equal immigration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Shockley
does not do justice to Shockley, but it’s a start.
“RR is nothing more than telling people what they already know but don’t want to hear.”
I think you’re generalizing too much from your own experience here, Prozium. In my neck of the woods (the white suburbs of the Midwest), people, especially the young, really truly do believe that race means nothing more than skin color. Maybe they have suppressed or subconscious doubts, but they believe in human equality the same way a religious man believes in god. There’s plenty of naivete to go around, and in my neighborhood you can cut it with a knife.
I disagree with many of the points that you make in this post. Race realism hasn’t succeeded because, despite what you say, hardly any Whites have even heard its arguments. Only a very small number of Whites read American Renaissance or VDare so I would say that hardly any of them know that racial differences in IQ or crime have a biological basis. Indeed, many of them even think that high Black crime rates are a direct result of White racism.
But I do agree that the obsessive attacks by race realists on ant-Semitism and Nazism is misguided. Also, I agree that focusing on just racial inequality is not nearly enough. We should strongly appeal to Whites on the basis of tribalism as well. In fact, I would say that the racial differences approach should be secondary to this approach. After all, love of one’s own people is what really energizes and motivates.
Here are a few more points of disagreement:
I disagree. There is some variance in the data but it all follows the same trend. Everywhere in the world Whites and Northeastern Asians are generally much less violent than other races — especially Blacks. Moreover, in every single White country non-Asian minorities are significantly more crime-prone than Whites. That being said, Russia does have high crime rates. However, this one exception hardly upsets the trend and merely shows that the environment and a longstanding culture of corruption can affect crime rates as well.
According to the Council of Conservative Citizens (you should link to them in your blogroll by the way) Blacks are about 13 percent of the US population but commit 59 percent of all felony murders. Overall, Blacks are 9 times more likely than Whites to commit murder. Also, studies show that about 30 percent of Black men have spent some time in prison, so you can hardly say that the vast majority of Blacks are law-abiding citizens. The report linked to also says that about 12 percent of Black men in their 20s and early 30s — more than one in ten — are currently behind bars right now.
And of course crime rates in Africa are even worse. For example, a study in South Africa found that one in four South African men admitted to raping someone.
In his book Human Accomplishment Charles Murray shows that Whites account for 97 percent of the significant figures and advancements in human history. If it wasn’t for Whites the world would still be in the Middle Ages right now.
” In my neck of the woods (the white suburbs of the Midwest), people, especially the young, really truly do believe that race means nothing more than skin color.”
Yes even today there are still lots of White people, mostly in the Suburbs or Rural areas that have had little contact with other Races! So whatever their teachers or television tells them is what they believe! It really is this simple. Sadly many just do not have the ability of Critical Thinking or have even run across works like ‘Camp of Saints’ that stand as a warning.
One is reminded of this quote from Willis Carto: ‘Negro equality or even supremacy, for example, is easier to believe in if there are no Negroes around to destroy the concept.’
” But I do agree that the obsessive attacks by race realists on ant-Semitism and Nazism is misguided.”
NO ENEMIES TO THE RIGHT!
Abandoning the false promises of conservatism & libertarianism, eschewing triangulating, and focusing on the nature and needs of the diverse white American peoples by advocating for local defensive white political voices could work wonders.
A study of governance would be helpful, especially in the techniques of avoiding seizure of our leadership once we get going.
They could easily argue that affirmative action served a short term purpose and now is unfair to whites.
I’m all for Guy White bashing, but this is a silly post. It saddens me, because I expect much, much better from you.
RR is nothing more than telling people what they already know but don’t want to hear. Honestly, who doesn’t already know that
The majority of Americans don’t know this, and they certainly don’t know that racial inequalities stem from biology, not “racism”.
These statistics are all over the map across different societies at different points in their history. The tame Nordics of Scandinavia were once the ferocious Vikings; the ancestors of gelded American suburbanites were rough and ready frontiersmen.
Very silly argument. Organized warfare l= crime.
RR’s gleefully argue that blacks are more likely to be violent criminals, but ignore the fact that the vast majority of blacks are law abiding citizens.
Et tu, Prozium with this inane liberal strawman? Who says that all blacks are criminal? What is this statement supposed to prove?
Racial differences in IQ, another major RR obsession, tends to cut both ways. Whites are demonstrably more intelligent on average than blacks and Hispanics, but this is nothing to crow about as Jews and East Asians tend to outscore us.
IQ differences prove that black failure is not our fault. Multiculturalism and white guilt crumble if IQ differences are accepted.
The Flynn Effect, which demonstrates the malleability of IQ over time, is also around to permanently frustrate those who argue for the immutability of racial differences in intelligence.
Your statement is false, as “The Flynn Effect” isn’t closing the racial gaps. There’s also evidence that the Flynn Effect is no longer operative.
RRs always argue against affirmative action in the name of meritocracy. In response, leftists (correctly) argue that Whites benefited from centuries of affirmative action in the form of racial preferences in every aspect of life.
Centuries of affirmative action? LMAO. Considering that most white countries didn’t have any non-whites until after 1950, how can this be true? How could this have been true in the United States prior to integration?
Furthermore, even if this argument was true (when it demonstrably isn’t), who cares? Are we to pay for the sins of our ancestors? Please show me the moral basis for whites suffering for the sins of their ancestors for all eternity.
RRs sputter and have no persuasive response to this line of argument.
Guy White, maybe, but not a RR with half a brain.
These people are always invoking white inventions to justify their white racial consciousness
Who?
Actually the only difference between crime and organized warfare is who is in charge.
There’s not much discussion here about art. There was a good documentary movie made fifteen or so years ago entitled The Architecture of Doom about National Socialism as a failed art movement. WNs seem to forget Hitler was essentially an artist/architect wannabe who got dragooned into the service of the party because he had a gift for oratory. I don’t see much discussion of culture here or at the opposition sites. Nothing about the Italian Futurists and British Vorticists. Nothing about Ezra Pound translating Ming Dynasty court poetry while writing slangy anti-Semitic tracts promoting Social Credit. No Ernst Junger. No Julius Evola. No Gabriele D’Annunzio. There was lots of cultural ferment between the wars, about half of which (the non Commie Jew half) has been flushed down the Memory Hole. One thing the WN/RR “movement” seems to lack is a sophisticated sense of modern popular culture. Dr. William Pierce, Dr. David Duke, Dr. Kevin MacDonald, and Dr. E Michael Jones may all be fab doctors of philosophy, but (God bless em) not one of them knows antyhing about modern art and culture. Well, I take that back. E. Michael Jones apparently plays the fiddle and has written extensively on revolutionary music in America from the l930’s to 1960’s.
1.) I never said the Flynn Effect would close racial gaps. Instead, I pointed out that average IQ scores have changed over time. You can’t have a discussion about the subject without facing this retort.
2.) Non-Whites were obviously discriminated against in housing and employment throughout most of American history. They were excluded from many unions. Until the 1860s, blacks didn’t have the most basic rights and liberties. In the South, blacks were excluded from most White universities until the 1960s.
3.) RRs are always appealing to Western science and technology to justify White racial consciousness.
4.) You didn’t respond to my point which wasn’t about blacks and Hispanics. Jews and East Asians tend to outscore Whites. Meritocracy leads to a Jewish-East Asian overclass hostile to White interests.
5.) It is just not a good argument. It invites the response that the majority of blacks are not criminals.
6.) Crime statistics fluctuate wildly across history and societies. Compare the Old West to the Southwest of 2009.
7.) I’m not so sure. Most intelligent and educated people are aware of racial differences in intelligence and educational accomplishment.
Let’s be more clear here, you’re referring to philo-Semitic race realism.
Race realism itself doesn’t have mainstream acceptance, and is only believed by a very small fraction of the population. Having personal biases, bad experiences or telling racist jokes doesn’t provide the same level of evidence that race realism does. In addition, race realism is necessary to counter the constant howls of inequality being caused by institutional racism. It’s useful scientifically and politically.
When race realism is on television as often and has the same level of acceptance as equality and anti-racism, when Jared Taylor is invited on as an authority figure as much as Mark Potok, Al Sharpton and others are, your argument will have more merit.
If you’re saying that genetic differences in group behavior and intelligence and that non-white races cannot reproduce our civilization isn’t a good enough argument to preserve ourselves, then what is?
In my opinion if race realism can’t succeed, if people don’t value their own race, culture and history, no argument about Jews is going to matter.
I personally don’t associate Guy White with race realism, in fact I had never heard of him at all until I read your blog.
I don’t think we should make our case by arguing that we are intrinsically better than non-Whites: more inventions, less crime, higher intelligence, etc. Ultimately, I don’t think separatism is about any of that. The standard RR arguments aren’t persuasive enough either to justify that course of action.
I should have said that WNs and RRs don’t seem to care much about race in relation to Postmodern art and culture. They have written on Modernism as a symptom of the Judaization of contemporary culture (Theodore Adorno’s Frankfurt School atonal music bias for example). My point being that the average citizen responds to cultural messages more quickly than to data.
“Most intelligent and educated people are aware of racial differences in intelligence and educational accomplishment.” ( — Prozium #13)
Right but part of it is they don’t believe it’s partly inborn, or they don’t think about that aspect of the question at all (because they prefer not to: it’s unpleasant and maybe for some a little hard to grasp). Race realism tells them it is partly inborn. Then they have no more excuses, either excuses for ignorance or excuses for preferring not to think about it. (Of course they then claim to be “skeptical” of the finding though they’re ignorant of science and of elementary mathematical statistics, or they blithely continue to simply block it out of their minds completely.)
RRs tend to be libertarians. Jensen comes to mind.
::Honestly, who doesn’t already know that.. (stuff about minorities)
Whites are stunningly ignorant about non-whites. Not everybody grew up in the Black Belt. For example, I thought blacks were liberal because they vote Democrat until I hung around with enough of them. Even people who are aware of racial differences often attribute them to racism or lack of education.
:: The tame Nordics of Scandinavia were once the ferocious Vikings; the ancestors of gelded American suburbanites were rough and ready frontiersmen.
The Vikings were 40 or more generations ago. That’s enough time for a fair amount of evolution. The frontiersman were rough and ready because there was no law there yet, and their fatass suburban descendents would be rough and ready again if there was no law again.
::Racial differences in IQ, another major RR obsession, tends to cut both ways.
RR does not equal white nationalism. Lots of RRs favor Asian immigration, or are non-white themselves. See GNXP, Feminist X, or Satoshi Kanazawa for examples.
:: leftists (correctly) argue that Whites benefited from centuries of affirmative action in the form of racial preferences in every aspect of life.
Only in the South. Elsewhere there was hardly enough diversity for racial laws to matter. Most whites have never been Jim Crow era Southern white men, and are not descended from them either.
::The idea that mainstream Republicans are going to cozy up to RRs if only they denounce Hitler and Nazism is a ludicrous fantasy…They are not about to foolishly align themselves with unabashed racist bigots.
How is that different than if they didn’t denounce Hitler and Nazism? Would that somehow make it more likely that mainstream Republicans would embrace racialism? Are you saying that racialism has no chance of success? If so, what difference does it make, and what’s the point of this post? You and GW/IJ/LA are all just pissing in the wind if that’s the case.
::Having learned nothing from the last 50 years, [RRs] are merely creating another ideological vehicle for Jewish mischief.
How is RR an ideological vehicle for Jewish mischief? AFAICT, it’s just the truth, no more, no less. Guy White and Ian Jobling’s philo-semitic axe-grinding is their personal issue, not a fundamental feature of RR. If it’s an ideological vehicle for Jewish mischief, why do Jews still tend to hate it?
Svigor,
Are you arguing that blacks and whites commit the SAME rate of crime across all known societies at all points in history?
1.) RR is rarely combined with demands for an ethnostate.
2.) RRs are either philo-Semites or avoid the Jewish Question entirely.
3.) I was splashing cold water on the fantasy that talking up the Jews and bashing Nazism is the road to mainstream success.
4.) Non-Whites experienced racial discrimination in the North as well.
5.) I don’t find the argument regarding the Vikings persuasive.
6.) And no, I don’t believe our intelligent and educated elites are that naive about racial differences.
Cold, you bring up a good point. Being a race realist doesn’t necessarily mean you’re pro-white, in fact you can be a race realist and not even be white. There are many different forms of race realism.
Even still, I’d like to see more of it in the media, not less, even if it’s done by a black, Asian or Jew. It goes against racial egalitarianism which is good.
That being said it’s not the end of the discussion by any means.
I would like to point out that Jared Taylor has also made the argument that intelligence is not the only thing that matters.
“When Asians arrive in large numbers, their effect is more ambiguous. Some North Asian groups commit fewer crimes than whites, make more money, and do better in school. Others, like the Hmong and the Cambodians, have fantastically high rates of poverty and welfare dependency. However, it does not matter whether Japanese or Chinese build societies that are, in some respects, objectively superior to those of Europeans. It matters only that they are different.”
http://www.amren.com/ar/1996/06/
This seems like the kind of ‘identitarian’ argument you are looking for.
The first priority should be to foster a positive racial identity among whites. As many people here have argued, there is no point in talking about white displacement to people who don’t identify as whites. Talking about the success of Western science helps this process . Mentioning the lower IQ of Blacks and Hispanics, as an explanation for their relative lack of success, also helps since it removes white guilt over their failures.
Prozium wrote:”1.) RR is rarely combined with demands for an ethnostate.
2.) RRs are either philo-Semites or avoid the Jewish Question entirely.
3.) I was splashing cold water on the fantasy that talking up the Jews and bashing Nazism is the road to mainstream success.
…
5.) I don’t find the argument regarding the Vikings persuasive.”
* * *
1) Agreed. However, this may make both strategies more effective. Whites who demand an ethnostate are only one group of whites who are advancing white interests. Unity is not always strength. Diversity sometimes allows a better control of the situation.
2) There are many different ways to be RR. I would call Kevin MacDonald an RR, but I wouldn’t say he’s avoiding the Jewish issues.
3) I agree that bashing Nazis and praising Jews serves no good purpose.
5) Yeah, I think the whole medieval Scandinavia to modern Scandinavia degeneration should be explained in some other way. Perhaps “overdomestication” would be the best explanation.
I have minor disagreements with Prozium’s points. No, race realism isn’t taking the country by storm but it does serve a purpose and the fundamentals of race the RR’s attempt to convey aren’t common knowledge outside of the South. Until semi-organized race realism typified by Jared Taylor’s American Renaissance came on the scene whites had no intellectual and factual counterpoints to the anti-white propaganda being disseminated by the mainstream press and academic institutions. Most of us probably started out as simple RR’s before becoming full fledged white nationalists.
How is it that black and brown race realism of holding whites collectively responsible for all of their shortcomings and of society’s ills has Prozium’s grudging respect but white race realism is arguably fallacious on some counts and a waste of time? How are non-whites morally correct for demanding more racial preference programs just because whites allegedly benefited at their expense in our early history and up to 1965? Given that 90% of the U.S. population was white until 1965 there weren’t many non-whites to oppress or to equally divide the spoils with. Now that we have a black president, a black attorney general, a black surgeon general, and black director of NASA and a host of others it’s time to bid goodbye to racial preferences for non-whites.
And the Vikings? They were very fierce warriors but also quite advanced in many respects and not just knuckle dragging brutes in horned helmets. They were known to practice a form of democracy, were expert metal workers and craftsmen, and their long ships were the most advanced in the world at that time. If so called educated people aren’t aware of these facts then they’re not very educated in my humble opinion.
If you’re attempting to compare the Bloods, Crips, Mexican Mafia and a host of other violent non-white gangs with the Vikings and American frontiersman then try again. Most black gangs can’t even shoot straight and I’m not aware of any redeeming qualities or technical achievements other than naked violence, mayhem and drug dealing in America’s cities.
The only problem I have with some RR’s like Guy Wanker is that they spend as much time attacking and defaming “anti-semites” as they do spreading the gospel on race to white people. I can respect honest and sincere RR’s like Jared Taylor but tend to agree that Jobling and others are a divisive presence amongst white nationalists.
Mr. Dithers,
1.) Non-Whites are identitarians, not race realists. They don’t necessarily believe in intrinsic biological racial differences. Instead, they start out with the perception that they belong to a distinct ethnic group with interests that clash with other groups.
2.) I haven’t said that non-Whites are morally justified in demanding affirmative action.
3.) Needless to say, the Vikings were far more aggressive and violent than modern Scandinavians.
4.) Jared Taylor is about the only RR who doesn’t attack WN.
” I don’t see much discussion of culture here or at the opposition sites.”
One reason is that, in essence, Western Civilization ceased to exist post 1945 and erected in its place is a Hegemonic ‘Culture of Critique’.
** “The fall of Stalingrad was the end of Europe. There’s been a cataclysm. Its epicenter was Stalingrad. After that you can say that white civilization was finished, really washed up.” — Celine **
The reason we don’t talk about contemporary culture that much is that there really isn’t much left for us to discuss!!!
“One thing the WN/RR “movement” seems to lack is a sophisticated sense of modern popular culture. ”
Mostly True, however Dr. Macdonald does talk a little about this in his works on ‘implicit Whiteness’ and stuff like Nascar, AC/CD concerts and the like. In my view some of us are drudging on as sub-cultures:
http://www.toqonline.com/2009/05/heavy-metal/
http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol6no4/MacDonald.pdf
Myself I am really big into Danzigs “White Devil Rise” and Morrisseys “National Front Disco”!!!
Opps put in too many links, must have gotten caught in the spam filter… SORRY.
Harsh_Henry14W,
I agree there was a total cataclysm at Stalingrad and cultural implosion after ’45. There’s a good book about this entitled THE CULTURAL COLD WAR: The CIA and The World of Arts and Letters by Frances Stoner Saunders. The Sixties really drove a nail into the coffin of conservative culture, but I have noticed a small flowering of international WN alternative culture mostly in popular music. In the visual arts the Ragnarok (sp? Scandinavian apocalypse) paintings of the Swedish realist Odd Nerdrum have made it into some museums. I’m eager to learn more about anything in the way of new culture in opposition to the Marxist monopoly that’s been in place since Sartre et al. Thanks for the links. I’ll check them out. However, I have to admit I prefer Rammstein to Danzig when it comes to heavy metal and kraut rock.
” I’m eager to learn more about anything in the way of new culture in opposition to the Marxist monopoly that’s been in place since Sartre et al. ”
Hey that sounds like a good topic for a thread in the forum:
‘Far Right New Culture’:
http://www.occidentaldissent.com/forum/showthread.php?p=195#post195
[quote]7.) I’m not so sure. Most intelligent and educated people are aware of racial differences in intelligence and educational accomplishment. –Prozium[/quote]
I would be interested to see your evidence for this. Most educated people I know are completely brainwashed and think that racial differences do not have a heritable component. This includes scientists at very good universities and research centres. It might be that those who think otherwise would not dare say so, but I’ve almost only ever heard the PC mantra recited with what appears to be honest conviction, from people who otherwise wishfully ascribe anomalous results of their experiments to genetic causes.
Ian Jobling has a very interesting article up on liberal principals and the resultant numbing of white solidarity. Even without the special interest crusaders like the ADL most intelligent white people believe in unrestrained individualism and ideas rather than heredity dictate allegiance. The middle class loves all of that mantra about “nation of immigrants” and freedom to race-mix, even if they won’t do it themselves. People support race-suicide because of a philosophical righteousness, not because of widespread suppression and trickery.
//
I fear race realism will ultimately harm whites because it will
1)rev up elite anger at ordinary white men for smashing their most precious lie.
2)throw SWPLs into a guilt spiral for the permanently inferior underclass-browns that it, not white trash.
3)increase nam crime against whites.
dagezhu,
In basing their opposition to affirmative action on meritocracy, RRs are precluded from making the obvious identitarian retort: America was a white man’s country, and so what of it?”
Certainly not! One can be a race realist and still argue against making America into a nation of many races. William Shockley, famous for his co-invention of the transistor, would simply reply that while blacks lack the merit of IQ, all non-whites lack the white capacity for scientific creativity. Given the axiom, “America should have the uniquely white virtue of Shockleyan scientific creativity,” any race realist can abandon any meritocratic argument for equal immigration.
Certainly so, judging by this response. The quality of an argument against “making America into a nation of many races” must be evaluated by the numbers it draws (or can hope to draw) to its side. An argument based on scientific creativity appeals only to those who value scientific creativity; few people appreciate the value of scientific creativity. Frankly, if that’s the best RR has to offer, you may as well pack it in.
rand,
Also, I agree that focusing on just racial inequality is not nearly enough. We should strongly appeal to Whites on the basis of tribalism as well. In fact, I would say that the racial differences approach should be secondary to this approach. After all, love of one’s own people is what really energizes and motivates.
Appeals to tribalism presuppose the existence of tribal feelings. Those feelings do not appear to exist. You should able to explain why people should become tribalistic or be motivated and energized by love of one’s own?
Prozium,
5.) I don’t find the argument regarding the Vikings persuasive.
You have to differentiate between internal and external violence. Vikings were tribal and belligerent (in common with all other peoples) and this may have been reflected in the texture of their domestic (‘internal’) order, but there’s every reason to suppose the moral code in operation in that society was of a vastly different nature to that which operated in, say, Africa, Amerindia, the Pacific etc.
Instead, they start out with the perception that they belong to a distinct ethnic group with interests that clash with other groups.
Hmm, “interests” is too sophisticated. (You’re talking about the average man, aren’t you?) Most of my friends (broad array of s. euro types) can’t stand niggers, indians, “muslims,” based on nothing more than that they look different/repulsive (and that they tend to be hostile towards us). Then again, the same tends to apply to northern whites, though the sense that northern whites are physically unappealing is essentially absent and the sense that they are hostile is greatly diminished.
Deaver,
People support race-suicide because of a philosophical righteousness, not because of widespread suppression and trickery.
They “support” it because they are unaware of its ultimate consequences. Many find it difficult-to-impossible to even believe that extinction is the ultimate consequence. (A tip: most can understand halving. So explaining that half, and half again, and half again, and half again, and so on, leads to effective extinction. “When whites are one in one thousand, that’s as good as extinct.” They tend to grasp that.)