Greg Johnson has penned an essay about Oswald Spengler and racial decadence that arrives at some pretty sweeping conclusions. A few days ago, Robert Campbell altered me to the existence of this article in a telephone conversation.
Three Senses of Race
Cutting to the meat of the essay, Greg Johnson starts off by arguing that race exists in three primary senses, the biological, cultural, and psychological:
1.) Race can refer to populations which vary by geography in gene frequencies and phenotype.
2.) Race can refer to having “racial consciousness.”
3.) Race can prefer to a primordial, life affirming, vital determination to expand and propagate and expand your tribe.
Nothing to argue with here. I would only dispute the idea that “racial consciousness” is “backward looking” whereas race in the psychological sense is “forward looking.”
In Colonial America, racial consciousness and race in the psychological sense evolved out of pre-existing English ideas and attitudes. Both were a response to the environmental conditions faced by Englishmen in the New World. The settlers took elements of their tradition (i.e., the concepts of just war and private property) and adapted them to their circumstances.
In the eighteenth century, Americans began the project of racial classification and interpretation of racial differences. “Science” itself (a method of understanding the natural world) is a tradition that stretches back into the Middle Ages and Greco-Roman Antiquity.
There is no conflict between “progress” and “tradition.” The only way to make “progress” is by working within the bounds of a tradition. This is most clearly seen in the history of technology where incremental advances in existing technology have led to new conceptual breakthroughs. Thus, the telegraph evolved over time into the cell phone, or the Kitty Hawk into the Columbia space shuttle.
Race and Culture
Having established the three senses of race (biological, cultural, and psychological), Greg Johnson moves on to argue that race informs culture, and vice versa. Nothing to argue with here either.
The societies built by Europeans are an extended phenotype. They reflect underlying heritable characteristics like intelligence and personality traits. At the same time, cultural memes (which are not heritable) are constantly influencing mate selection, which over time will change a population at the biological level.
Race Platonism and Race Traditionalism
Following Spengler, Greg Johnson next begins to discuss “Race Platonism” and “Race Traditionalism,” which he defines as 1.) that racial archetypes that are immutable forms and 2.) that the modern races have degenerated from ideal forms that existed in the distant past.
Both are easily dismissed.
“Race Traditionalism” is easily refuted by the fossil evidence of archaeology. “Race Platonism” is refuted by everything we know about modern biology and genetics.
If all racial minority groups were expelled from North America tomorrow, the White population would still evolve. Natural selection would continue to operate on mutations and genetic drift. In the absence of gene flow, Whites and non-Whites would eventually diverge into separate species.
Change is inevitable.
Outside of the “Radical Traditionalist” community, this idea is uncontroversial in White Nationalist circles.
Racial Preservation – Getting It Wrong
Having established the three types of race, the fact that culture informs race, and that genetic change is inevitable, Greg Johnson moves into more controversial territory. He declares that “racial preservation” is tantamount to “death.”
Johnson’s error begins in setting up a straw man of racial preservation. The ideal of “racial preservation” is not analogous to, say, killing a deer and having a taxidermist mount it on your wall, as everyone recognizes that gene frequencies change in each generation.
“Racial preservation” means nothing more than declaring that some traits (i.e., fair skin, fair hair, fair eyes, high intelligence, amiable personality, etc.) should be favored, selected, and encouraged in our culture.
This can be easily accomplished: Whites and non-Whites can be geographically separated, non-White immigration can be banned, the traditional American racial ideal can be promoted in all types of media, miscegenation can be outlawed, the tax code could be altered to encourage eugenic marriages, social services that deter family formation can be eliminated, etc.
If American culture and public policy was changed tomorrow, say, to reflect the White Nationalist racial idea, the United States would become more racially and culturally European over time, which is exactly what happened between Reconstruction and the the Civil Rights Movement. When JFK was elected president, America was almost 90% White; this happened by design, not by accident.
Racial Purity – Getting It More Wrong
After developing this idea that “racial preservation” is “death,” through an interpretation of Oswald Spengler, Greg Johnson goes on to attack the idea of “racial purity,” which he claims is incompatible with race in the psychological sense as a viral, life affirming world outlook.
Historically speaking, it only takes a moment’s reflection to dismiss this idea. In Colonial America, the ideal of racial preservation and race in the psychological sense evolved together and complemented each other. “Racial purity” meant nothing more than the determination of English settlers to preserve their European phenotype.
The frontiersmen had the will to power to seize land, clear it of Indians, and erect towns and cities. As White settlement expanded along the Atlantic seaboard, the first anti-miscegenation laws were passed; a racial caste system emerged; an elaborate code of racial etiquette began to govern racial interaction.
The “healthy men of race” – the American settlers – were expansionists who still thought of themselves as Englishmen, increasingly thought of themselves as Whites, and eventually codified their ideal of racial preservation into law. Like Americans have always done, they thought about the past, present, and the future.
There is no opposition between “vitality” and “racial purity.” If that were the case, 350 years of American history would be incomprehensible.
White Nationalism Is Degenerate – Jumping the Tracks
Greg Johnson concludes that “racial preservation” is “death” (from 1665 to 1967, America was dead) and that “racial purity” is somehow opposed to “vitality” (like when we conquered the North American continent). The next logical step is to conclude that White Nationalism is “overwhelmingly a degenerate movement.”
White Nationalism is condemned as degenerate … because, somehow, White Nationalists don’t want to Whites to evolve into the Talosians from Star Trek or Elves from Lord of the Rings. By advocating racial preservation (i.e., erecting barriers to non-White admixture), we are “murdering” and “mummifying” our race.
Well, I disagree.
Greg Johnson is condemning the healthy elements of White Nationalism as degenerate. By healthy, I mean White Nationalists advocate America’s traditional racial and cultural ideals over modern progressive ones, which is to say, we select for European phenotype.
Among other things, White Nationalists want to separate the races, ban miscegenation, increase the birthrate, and promote aesthetic images of White beauty and health in the media. What is degenerate about that?
Progressives advocate miscegenation, race anarchy, White guilt, transfers of wealth from Whites to non-Whites, third world immigration, multiculturalism, affirmation action, and diversity. If there is something “healthy” about the progressive agenda (the first interracial kiss occurred on Star Trek), I certainly have never seen it.
White Nationalists are degenerates, but not for the reasons Greg Johnson describes. The problem is that White Nationalists, even the ones who have given up America (yours truly included), are still culturally American themselves. Even the most diehard racialists are only a few degrees mentally removed from the American cultural mainstream.
The same degeneracy that afflicts American culture in general (expressive individualism being the best example) has deeply penetrated the White Nationalist movement. When Neo-Nazis parade through Toledo, they are simply carrying on the long established avant-garde tradition of shocking the bourgeoisie. When White Nationalists get piercings and tattoos, they are merely aping their aracial peers.
I could continue to list examples, but the two above are sufficient to establish my point. White Nationalists are not immune to their cultural environment. It is a constant struggle to separate ourselves, mentally and physically, from the sewage that pulsates through our culture. Even the best of us are subtly influenced by it.
A “Vital” White Nationalism
Now that “racial preservation” has been labeled “death,” “racial purity” called “mummifying the race,” and White Nationalism has been pronounced “an overwhelmingly degenerate movement,” Greg Johnson wants to create a new vital White Nationalism, and has a few ideas as to how to go about this.
His starting point: the “animal vitality” of a Star Trek convention. I’ve known Trekkies in the past. None of them have struck me as particularly virile. Quite the opposite.
Johnson diagnoses the problem: White Nationalism is “conservative,” which is to say, “backward looking,” devitalized, decadent, decadent, and gloomy. Star Trek is “progressive,” which means forward-looking, optimistic, and hopeful.
Come on, Greg.
This isn’t even a good interpretation of Star Trek. In TOS, Captain Kirk fought the Klingons. In TNG, the show bombed until the Borg were created as a villain. The Deep Space Nine series was entirely about war with a race called “The Dominion.” Voyager bombed until the Borg returned as the major villain. Finally, Enterprise was a flop, even after the directors tried to revive the show through a grab bag of conflicts with the Klingons, Borg, Xindi, and Romulans. In the latest Star Trek movie, a Romulan time traveler destroys Vulcan, the home planet of Spock.
There are no social penalties (aside from nerdiness) with being labeled a Trekkie. No one loses their job or goes to prison for watching Star Trek. No one utterly dehumanizes Trekkies. They are not socially ostracized by their own families. This is a really bad analogy.
In Johnson’s view, a “vital White Nationalist movement” would be a “utopian, progressivist, eugenicist mythical-cultural phenomenon.” Maybe something like a combination of Star Trek and Lord of the Rings. I think this prescription speaks more to Johnson’s aesthetic and intellectual tastes than it does to reality.
History: Our Guide
Greg Johnson thinks we should look to the future as our guide. I think we should look to our past. What factors motivated White Americans to seize their racial destiny and conquer a continent?
Answer: it was a combination of things.
The American colonies were established out of religious, commercial, and geopolitical motives. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the English wanted to rid themselves of a swarming underclass, compete with France and Spain in the New World, create an outlet for their industrial production and a source of raw materials, and bring the Gospel to the New World.
As Virginia and the other colonies matured, Americans expropriated land from the Indians. The Indians were considered savages, heathens, and non-Whites. They were squatting on land which the colonists could develop and build into a free society. For racial, ethnic, religious, moral, and economic reasons, the Indians were dispossessed and pushed further West.
In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, science labeled non-Whites inferior, and studies were produced that convinced the brightest minds to support segregation. Greedy settlers motivated by self-interest poured into Indian lands. Racial idealism and geopolitical rivalry with Britain motivated Americans annex Texas and seize the West from Mexico.
In sum, Americans conquered North America for commercial, religious, geopolitical, cultural, political, moral, racial, ethnic, intellectual and self-interested reasons. Everything from racial idealism to religion to science to morality to divine providence was cited to justify the expropriation.
The lesson to be learned from this is that White Nationalists should appeal to the full suite of human interests, not any specific one, to justify the reconquest.
Devitalization
What crippled the American project?
One European bad idea after another: liberalism, anti-slavery, natural rights ideology, communism, democracy, capitalism, millenarianism, anarchism, fascism, anti-racism, expressive individualism, libertarianism, postmodernism, feminism, nihilism, humanism, etc.
The effete sons of rough frontiersmen became infatuated and possessed by these abstract ideas. These abstractions were pushed to ever newer extremes at the expense of common sense, self interest, and tradition. When combined with material abundance, they produced the moral rot which has always been the source of republican decline.
Oswald Spengler can be included in this category: Western Civilization is doomed, cultures go through life cycles, we are living in the terminal phase of civilization. I can’t think of a better prescription for helplessness and inaction than Spenglerian historical determinism.
Revitalizing the White Nationalist movement lies in recapturing the racial attitude of our pioneer ancestors. The solution does not lie in the dust covered books of long dead European philosophers.
The fact that cultures die does not mean that the races that give rise to them need to die. The European race has given rise to two of Spengler’s great cultures (the classical and the Faustian), and it will give birth to a third.
Trainspotter, Excellent comments!
“Man does not live by bread alone, his propensity for religion should be testament enough to that. Our problem is that we have failed to shape our worldview into something compelling enough to win. It’s that simple, and that complicated.
We either defeat these ideas, or they will defeat us. We either replace them philosophically, or they will replace us physically. There is no easy way around this, we can’t just wish them away.”
Religion is something perfected in and focused the most in white European gene pools above all other races. The search for higher truth in science is a direct reflection of this fact. Getting the RIGHT abstract ideas requires the commitment to truth and freedom ONLY WE HAVE.
There is a world of difference between eugenics and transhumanism.
The latter presupposes that human consciousness can sufficiently comprehend human existence to transform it into an artifact.
Well, even if that were possible, it is not going to happen for a long, long time.
Eugenics need not presume any such thing. It is completely consistent with and practicable within the limits of present day knowledge. Indeed, long before the discovery of genetic, people knew how to make coming generations smarter, healthier, and more beautiful than the ones before.
Indeed, Eugenics is consistent with the idea that consciousness is finite, that it arises from sources that are ultimately mysterious, and thus that human existence can never IN PRINCIPLE be fully comprehended.
But that take us into European idears that have no place here.
There is another possibility. Perhaps faith and intellectualization lead men into absence, away from presence in the real world. Perhaps when one is fully, consciously present in the real one naturally acts towards what we might hope we evolved to act as: vehicles for the transmission of our genes through time consonant with EGI. If we take MacDonald’s contention that something like this takes place at the level of implicit cognition we must consider the possibility that such a state could be entered into. Perhaps a premium blend of implicit and explicit cognition.
“As an aside, I think it misses the point to paint the conquerors of ages past as, more or less, mindless barbians. ”
Right. I like the line of thought Hunter has been developing concerning whites being more like the frontiersmen and settlers of the past. BUT, I think he needs to proceed with extreme caution here and quit with the blanket condemnations of European Intellectuals (or any other intellectuals, for that matter) while overpraising the coarse culture of early American colonists. I say this because I fear that, regardless of the merits of his intention, in practice he is going to end up with the same type of thing we have with so many people who are infatuated with National Socialism but have only a very rough and simplyfied sketch of it to go on: dumbasses who parade around in costumes and who verbally react to everything not to their liking as nonwhite, Jewish, degenerate and too much like Hollywood. In this case, and what I fear it becoming, is a bunch of people disdaining ANY hint of intellectualism and advocating ONLY farming and the raising of animals for food and similar pursuits to make livings and having “hard as nails fists” and a disposition like that of 1940s “private eye” pulp fiction stories.
I can well imagine such a “take” of Hunter’s idea and suggestions from many. The truth is, whether anyone likes it or not, the world is more sophisticated and is going to remain so. Raising chickens and running a farmers market while also working your hands to the bone doing the kind of work the common white man has done all down the ages is admirable and may build a better character, etc., but the world has changed and so must the white man. Or else he, like the dinosaurs who could not adapt to the drastically changed environment and was displaced by even the rodent, will be superceded by the Asian because of science and technology, the Jew for displacing him in the rest of the intellectual seats of power, and the lower non whites in Will to Power. Therefore, all this recent suggestion by various commentators about a “return to a simpler life” is only more disarmament in the face of enemies who are utilizing the changes that have and are taking place in the world. A white ethnostate whose population cannot produce, or is even interested in, say, VLSI or knows about root-locus analysis will swiftly go down before the intellectual juggernaut of Asia, no matter how hard a workers it has. It is true that it is still necessary to eat and clear the ground, but it is also true that the world no longer holds those endeavors in the same class as in the past.
Bib overalls can no longer compete with suits and ties and graphing calculators in dictating how the world is going to be run. Kagen will soon have more say in deciding if gay marriage will be the future than ten million farmers. Learning calculus is overtaking learning how to dig a ditch in sustaining a First World country. They have billions of non whites who will work for peanuts for those jobs.
“Things I don’t like about Spengler (or Yockey for that matter) is the old ideas of “cyclical” nature. These were dispelled by the modern scientific method and modern theories of evolution. ”
Were they?
I don’t particularly like the thought of a cyclical nature of civilizations, but it is hard to outright deny it being true in light of observation. Moreover, the scientific method has not dispelled this theory, in fact, it reinforces it in light of the history of the rise and fall of every civilization known to history and all observation data regarding current civilizations (And there are major problems with using the scientific method in formulating a philosophy of history, anyway. For a start, too much subjectivity on the part of the historian is injected into any analysis of history.) What “modern theories of evolution” are you speaking of? The evolution of human beings? If so, then no, since the cyclical theory deals with civilizations and not, per se, people. Only the civilization dies, the people remain and can even build a greater civilization than the one before.
Somehow both Greg and Hunter are missing something essential in each others arguments, something nuanced and possibly semantic. Hunter did not advocate dwelling angrily on past wrongs and lost glory. Greg did not advocate miscegenation.
My distilled take-home from Hunter:
There is clearly something to be learned from our history. At some time in the past, a state existed that we would now find preferable to our current condition. Understanding the events that lead to that state and its downfall may be informative for advancing from our current state into a more favorable future state. The past is the only point of comparison for interpolation and extrapolation that we have, as imperfect as parallels with the present day may be. Some common principles may be derived and applied to the present. Symbols and memory of our lost past may be inspiring and energizing to others we wish to influence.
My distilled take-home from Greg:
Dwelling in the past at the expense of a developed future outlook is a recipe for stagnation. A focus on the details of our past as major topics of argument in advancing our cause does literally nothing for us. We will not appeal to a wider audience than we already enjoy. Moreover, the focus on the past, instead of a focus on conquering the future is depressing, de-energizing, and isolating. What we currently have is not something we want to conserve, and our past is dead. To ‘preserve’ what we have and honor our past we must secure our future with all energy and vitality. Rather than preserve, we should want to continue or propagate our race. Become progressive, become ‘racial propagationists’.
My attempted synthesis of the two (plus some other stuff):
Towards establishing the sort of vital creative force that Greg is talking about, the building of white advocacy groups as Hunter and others are attempting can only help in the number of whites willing to pursue the WN while having families. Have real world White Nationalist contacts who have families of their own, and all of a sudden you and yours are not alone. You have like-minded friends with like-minded kids in tow for your kids to play with. Networks, communities, and families are built. Kievsky’s promotion of entrepreneurship hits on something right here too, it is a creative and energizing force. Employed as part of building our community it brings us the resources and influence to continue building, and makes all the more attractive to those we wish to influence. Forget the bit about Greg’s Elves and stuff. Keep the bit about wanting the best for your future children’s children, on and on and ever after. Make that your focus.
The future and our conception of what could be are more vitally energizing than what was and what can never again be. This should inform our angle of attack in appealing to non-WN whites. However, the details of our past are where we come from, and as such can be both inspiring and informative. Understanding the past can clearly tell us what went wrong, how we might avoid it in the future, and help identify key points of attack in our broader strategy. Such study and debates should continue in the case that they are productive in this sense. Heated debate about past wrongs and lost glory does not really belong at the fore of the advancing our influence. Such topics can be so anger-inducing and non-productive for us, and repulsive to our targets, such that we isolate ourselves socially and our testicles shrivel and die.
Have I got this right?
@ Oats and Honey:
I’m impressed. That is a very productive synthesis.
What would a vital white nationalist community look like?
It would not be an internet forum.
It would not be a conference attended primarily by unmarried men over 40 who do not have children. Probably the only other group that beats WNs in average age, a male-tipped sex ratio, and lack of offspring is the College of Cardinals. Yes, there are more young people involved all the time, but the average age is still high.
A vital white nationalist community would probably be more like parish of one of the churches that still encourage high fertility. There would be husbands and wives, children, and old people. They would pool their resources for child care, have community gardens, quilting circles, sports teams, go camping and hiking together, etc.
And they would also be concerned to preserve their genetic heritage–and enhance it–for the next generation.
Now imagine the subliminal persuasive power of these kinds of white advocates on undecided whites, as opposed to the present white nationalist community.
But is is more than a matter of packaging. People who can do all these things well are also effectual in other ways that the current White Nationalist movement is not.
This movement is dysfunctional and ineffectual. That is a fact. We need to work backwards from that fact to an explanation, and then move from an explanation to solutions.
I think that Spengler has something to contribute. So do a lot of other writers of dusty old books full of abstract idears. That’s why I write. That’s why I will continue to write.
Dr. Greg,
A major thing you’re missing here is the unity of form and function, perceiving only the form of Whiteness. Our attributes are no more valuable independent of their function than a hammer’s attributes are valuable in the absence of a nail. You’re correct that mere “preservation” is both futile and foolish, but only in the absence of a function. The only way to preserve the approximate form of Whiteness is to preserve the approximate conditions from which it emerged.
One must discover what conditions made us have the attributes we have in the first place. Then one must decide whether we wish to manifest and perpetuate those conditions. Presuming an affirmative answer, one must then determine how to reconstruct those conditions in the modern world.
This can be easily accomplished: Whites and non-Whites can be geographically separated, non-White immigration can be banned, the traditional American racial ideal can be promoted in all types of media, miscegenation can be outlawed, the tax code could be altered to encourage eugenic marriages, social services that deter family formation can be eliminated, etc.
It’s easy to separate Whites and non-Whites?
What is a eugenic marriage? Which genes are good? Who determines that? Is eugenics simple enough to accomplish with some photocopied brain teasers and some gardening shears? If we select ourselves for the attributes that make for success in a mature/declining civilization, we’ll be accelerating our transformation into Jews.
I could continue to list examples, but the two above are sufficient to establish my point. White Nationalists are not immune to their cultural environment. It is a constant struggle to separate ourselves, mentally and physically, from the sewage that pulsates through our culture. Even the best of us are subtly influenced by it.
I don’t think we can blame our dysfunctions on modernity. We’re among the least modern of any subculture yet are among the most “decadent”.
What crippled the American project?
One European bad idea after another: liberalism, anti-slavery, natural rights ideology, communism, democracy, capitalism, millenarianism, anarchism, fascism, anti-racism, expressive individualism, libertarianism, postmodernism, feminism, nihilism, humanism, etc.
But what unleashed this biblical plague of abstract bullshit? Why does my back hurt? Because my blisters are infected. Why are my blisters infected? Because my immune system has failed to fend off the bacteria. Why is my immune system failing? Because my T cell count is down. Why is my T cell count down? Because they were all destroyed by the AIDS virus. Why did the AIDS virus destroy them? Because they are natural enemies. How did the AIDS virus get there? Through anal sex with another man. Why did I have anal sex with another man? Because I’m inclined to homosexuality and there’s no longer a taboo in our society against acting on it. What happened to the taboo? It went away with the rest of the traditional biblical mores. Why did they go away? …
Had we a healthy oligarchy with our stewardship at heart, these -isms would have never swarmed and swamped us like this. The chain of causation goes much farther back than this plague.
Spengler lacked a mechanism to explain why the cycle progresses as he convincingly showed that it has. He’s correct that we are reaching a period of decline. But for lack of an understanding of the underlying processes, he fell into the same abyss that Greg Johnson fell into.
Matt Parott’s 2 comments in a row, to Dr Greg on form and function, and then the comment with the example of the AIDs virus.
Really special excellent comments. I am wary of making too strong a compliments because eventually I never fully agree with anything anyone says, and maybe that’s not bad because when we follow all the threads of thought around any statement whatsoever, it leads to more and more thousands of items out in reality. Maybe ego is also a factor.
Minor point. The form and function example of hammer and nail. Is that a standard example or did you think it up for the post?
I really liked the example with the long chain of logic, part of which was going through the AIDs virus.
Several other parts of your comment are remarkably thought-provoking. Some really new directions and fresh air.
Romer’s comment also resonated with me, July 15, “We either defeat these ideas, or they will defeat us,” no wishy washying around it. The comment may somewhat have got into the thing that all these ideas are not non-existent airy things that can be falsely and simple-mindedly denied (religion??). Guess we have work to do. Get the hammer and nails.
This is a great thread, really many threads. There are many inter-related postings here, I’m going to post on them seperately.
This is quoted above:
“This can be easily accomplished: Whites and non-Whites can be geographically separated, non-White immigration can be banned, the traditional American racial ideal can be promoted in all types of media, miscegenation can be outlawed, the tax code could be altered to encourage eugenic marriages, social services that deter family formation can be eliminated, etc.”
I don’t see this as being easily accomplished. You are talking about spinning prevailing attitudes 180* Right now our politics, laws, entertainment, cultural norms favor the exact opposites of what you call out. Other than a very few outposts on the web there is no momentum in this direction today. So today there is zero possibility of changing any law, or reforming social services. A candidate who even in veiled way espoused any of these ideas would be branded a racist and hounded to certain defeat.
I’m always surprised by the “it will be easy” thought. It will be a heroic task to accomplish this, and one that probably requires a pretty brilliant strategy and tactics. So far we are still in retreat, with the forces of multiculturalism on the attack. Compare, for instance, the coverage of the NAACP’s absurd attack on the Tea Party and the massive coverage it garnered with the relatively little coverage of the White DOJ attorney who recounted in detail the anti-white policies in place under the Holder/Obama regime.
Just take one of your list items: miscegenation will be outlawed. It’s almost impossible to imagine. You’d need a whole new legislature in one state, because todays Dems are the tools of minorities and liberals who dream of miscegenation for various reasons, and propositional conservatives who have drunk at the fountain of libertarianism, and embraced civil rights. Then (assuming current political arrangments) you’d need a whole new Supreme Court. (Thomas is a miscegenator.) Which would mean a type of President unlike any of the last 10, or any of the last 50 major candidates in the last 10 election cycles (including that Paleo hero Ron Paul, who as a libertarian would no doubt say that the big-bad government has no place interfering in such personal affairs.)
How is this easy, other than as a purely intellectual exercise from behind the keyboard?
Discard says:
“The problem of culture is that a great many Whites don’t have one. In the place where a culture ought to be, they have instead an ever-changing stew of prejudices, constantly being amended by their Jewish masters. A culture is a pattern of ideas and practices that evolves in response to a people’s circumstances. What this country has is “cultural product”, carefully manufactured by people who are knowledgeable about psychology and human weakness, and sold by people who hate us. Note how homo marriage has gone from “unheard of” to “fundamental right” in about five years. No real culture is so malleable.”
I strongly agree. Our first and most important task is to build a new, alternative culture that is authentic and appropriate to our needs and goals. To talk of political solutions ahead of this first cultural goal being firmly accomplished is an absurd fantasy.
Trainspotter wrote:
We must synthesize vitality with racial preservation, or we will become just another Brazilian or Mongolian cesspool. Were the Mongolian hordes not “vital” at one point? Were not the intrepid Portugese explorers? Look at them now (especially if you want to puke). Defile the blood and all is lost. To call that “vitality” is absurd.
I think there are still plenty of pure Mongolians in Mongolia. The core of the race. Sure their genes have been propagated widely by Gengis Khan and subsequent armies. I don’t think of Mongolia as a cesspool. In fact they were able to maintain much of their cultural, spiritual and ethnic continuity while the Russians on one side and the Han Chinese on the author went full-bore to subvert their culture to the alien Communist ideology.
As for the Portugese, my sense is that Brazil is the much more vibrant country today when compared to Portugal. Portugal is famous as the “P” in PIIGS, the poster children for failing European socialism, driven by declining birth rates. Brazil is the “B” in BRIC, standing for Brazil, Russia, India and China the four fastest growing economies in the world.
When I think of ugly people Brazilians do not pop to the front of my mind. I suppose there are some ugly mestizos there, but there do seem to be a lot of pretty Brazilians out there, including a string of fashion models.
A civilization (or a culture) is not a living organism.
Jackson,
I think you misunderstood what I was saying: we know how to make the United States more racially and culturally European. We have the knowledge to do so. It is the will power that is lacking.
If we had the will power (a hypothetical scenario), then we could select for European traits (fair hair, fair skin, fair eyes, etc.). It’s like saying I want to drive from Washington, DC to Alabama. I know how to get there. It can be easily done.
Hunter,
It’s a superorganism, just like an anthill. It can be compared pretty reliably to an organism…up to a point (Spengler goes beyond that point). They all follow the same basic design patterns manifesting in varied avatars. As is the case with the ant, the civilized hominid’s habitat is the society. In a mature civilization, highly specialized and endogamous caste groups occupy the society’s niches – like organs within an organism. We Westerners are late to the game, and are being defeated by an invasive managerial caste from a long-dead civilization that is both genetically and memetically fine-tuned to excel at dominating a mature civilization’s managerial niche.
but there do seem to be a lot of pretty Brazilians out there, including a string of fashion models.
Which are often pulled from the more European stocks that reside in rural areas, not the urban mongrels.
Hunter Wallace: “It is the will power that is lacking.”
Matt Parrott: “It can be compared pretty reliably to an organism…up to a point”
I think it’s mainly the superorganism that lacks the will power. Most people want to reverse the immigration policy, but the superorganism saps their will.
“Bib overalls can no longer compete with suits and ties and graphing calculators in determining how the world is going to be run.” Brutus.
True, but bib overalls and graphing calculators are not mutually exclusive. Think of Socrates, philosopher and stonecutter. Or Spinoza, philosopher and lens grinder. Or John Adams, farmer and lawyer. Or Wilbur and Orville Wright, bicycle mechanics and aeronautical engineers. Or even Discard, roofer, truck driver, welder, and school teacher. No good mind was ever damaged by learning to fix a water pump or build a chair.
Bob in Idaho asked…
The form and function example of hammer and nail. Is that a standard example or did you think it up for the post?
I believe the hammer/nail metaphor is the most common example used when describing objects and their necessary functions. For example, “When all you got is a hammer, all your problems look like nails”.
Armor said…
I think it’s mainly the superorganism that lacks the will power.
The body’s healthy. It’s the brain (elite/oligarchy) that’s damaged.
Hunter – Yes, I see now what you were saying. And I agree: “It is the will power that is lacking.”.
How to gather up that will to power, that’s the real question, isn’t it? I think we need a new culture, new myths, maybe even a new (or revised interpretation of) God. And we need a vision of the future that is compelling. We need more direction towards the future and less critique.
I think Greg made some great points with that part of his essay. Generally I think this site does a good job of working on all that stuff.
I think there is already a lot of latent talent, energy, and resources built up in the White Nationalist movement. If there was a competent leadership with a reasonable plan of action, I think we could start to organize and make progress.
“No good mind was ever damaged by learning to fix a water pump or build a chair.”
I know, I myself seem to be constantly repairing things and it hasn’t damaged my mind much. But I was talking about seats of power, and my point is that it is not with the manual labor professions.
Brutus: Part of the problem with those in seats of power is that they are so twisted that they have no healthy, creative interests. In any case, I agree with you that ordinary White brutes won’t be the ones to restore our race. But there always are, among frontiersmen and barbarians, shrewd leaders, men capable of besting effete, perverted, administrators and office holders. Think of Lech Walensa, the Polish electrician.
Matt Parott – thanks for answering my question – the hammer/nail metaphor is the most common example used when describing objects and their necessary functions.
But as for your example, “When all you got is a hammer, all your problems look like nails”, I certainly had a much more positive idea in mind when I used the idea. Hammer and nail was a rhetorical device to indicate building and constructing.
Hunter Wallace in response to Jackson said, “… there is already a lot of latent talent, energy, …” ” … competent leadership with a reasonable plan of action, I think we could start to organize and make progress.”
It may take a lot more. Including savvy, insight, luck, as well as insightful knowledge of happenings and experience in the real world. I don’t why, but I am thinking of Karl Marx. By his destructive aggressiveness in several forms (for instances, see the book “The Red Prussian”), he drove out everyone else in the movement who wouldn’t be totally subordinate to him. He destroyed the movement. He was plenty capable to demoralize opposition. Plenty. People could not stand up to him for long.
That movement – what we call Communism today – would have become incredibly different than what it became. Overwhelmingly most of the early men in it were non-Jewish, and they definitely had different ideas than Marx. Yet he took over the movement (this was the end of the 1800’s). Look at the alternate reality we live in today. Even after a 100 million deaths we are still struggling for our existence.
And it isn’t only Jewish people. I am beginning to wonder that the men in the pro-White movement of maybe 6 to 3 decades ago effectively closed off (demoralized) and in effect pushed out all others who might have had a whole range of different ideas than theirs, some of the ideas might have been extremely valuable too, but no, these early men could not see anything but their own ideas. These early men have added to the terrible altered reality we now inhabit.
So a big factor is watching out for too much squelching of various ideas of various people. And for one subgroup too much demoralizing another subgroup in all the ways, some subtle and sophisticated, intentional or unintentional, that that can happen. And at the same time have success in the pro-White cause. Not easy. Not easy at all.
That pretty much sums up White Nationalism today. Those who lack will, lack the power to create a future for themselves and their kind. That is pretty much Spengler’s and Nietzsche’s definition of decadence.
But I repeat oneself.
Er, that should be “myself.”
Hunter writes:
No, that is not an apt description of Spengler. Spengler wrote about history and culture not because he was some sort of escapist, but because he wanted to understand the forces that shape the future, and that was because he wished to become one of those forces. I don’t know if he had any children or not, but the children of his fertile brain are very much with us today.
We are perishing from bad ideas. The only way to fight bad ideas is with better ones. Better ideas need not conflict with our animal vitality, and they might be able to clear away the bad ideas that inhibit it.
Talking about becoming naive frontiersmen again is just another ineffectual form of living in the past. In the long run, whites are not going to survive by acting dumb and thinking small. Brutus is right about that. Community gardens and local tribes and the like are either a means to an end–namely a white ethnostate that can survive in a world of armed enemies who act smart and think big–or they are a dead end, a Darwinian dead-end, a self-induced weakness that is the prelude to death.
Nietzsche and Spengler are right about politics in our time: the stakes are now global, the actors are titanic, little states will only survive by confederating themselves into larger power blocs, and those who opt out of the struggle for global dominion will have their destinies dictated by their enemies.
Jackson: “I don’t think of Mongolia as a cesspool.”
By the standards of our people, it is. An STD ridden population of utterly impoverished Mongoloids would qualify as a cesspool by any reasonable definition. The point is that “vitality,” understood in a simplistic and crude sense, is not enough. Mongolia is now a mere plaything of other powers, barely deserving of notice. An impoverished backwater, a cautionary tale.
Jackson: “As for the Portugese, my sense is that Brazil is the much more vibrant country today when compared to Portugal.”
Brazil has nearly 18-20 times the population of Portugal, so sure, there is going to be more going on there. There are probably far more people of Portugese descent in Brazil than in Portugal itself.
But by any reasonable standard (per capita GDP, crime rates, general cultural level, whatever), Portugal is far better off. It’s true that Portugal itself is no great shakes by European standards, but that was part of my point. There is considerable evidence that Portugal’s gene pool is substantially tainted by non-white genes.
Of course, Brazil’s population is far, far more tainted. So we see the hierarchy at work: the more tainted one’s gene pool the lower the per capita performance. We see this time and time again. Portugal generally performs worse than more solidly European nations, and Brazil performs worse (per capita, obviously) than Portugal. I used the Portugese as an example simply because they were notoriously “vital” and intrepid during the Age of Discovery, but they did not pay sufficient attention to racial quality. They instead took Spengler’s advice, and have been paying for it ever since.
The point is not to quibble over degrees of racial admixture or purity, or to deny exceptions to the rule, but simply to emphasize the importance of racial quality. It is insane to ever subordinate race in favor of abstract notions of “vitality,” or what have you. Race matters. There is no conflict between racial preservation and vitality. Violate one, and you violate the other. How “vital” are the Portugese today, whether in their homeland or in Brazil?
Jackson: “Portugal is famous as the “P” in PIIGS, the poster children for failing European socialism, driven by declining birth rates. Brazil is the “B” in BRIC, standing for Brazil, Russia, India and China the four fastest growing economies in the world.”
I understand this, but check out the per capita figures. For example, compare per capita GDP in Brazil to Portugal, and then Portugal to its neighbors. I think you will find it enlightening.
Jackson: “When I think of ugly people Brazilians do not pop to the front of my mind. I suppose there are some ugly mestizos there, but there do seem to be a lot of pretty Brazilians out there, including a string of fashion models.”
Who are often, and famously, of entirely European descent. There are regular controversies in Brazil over the failure of the fashion industry to utilize non-whites, given that non-whites are now the majority. The scouts are more likely to hunt the tiny German villages and towns of southern Brazil, not the sprawling slums that teem with the mixed.
By the way, there are many great posts on this thread. Brutus, Oats and Honey, and many others. Good stuff.
Trainspotter, agreed, good stuff. Since this thread is sliding down the front page, but still seems to have life left in it, should it be moved to the forum?
Many good ideas here, and in some other older threads that are no longer active but are relevant, really deserve to be developed further.
hunter,
(Why don’t you capitalize my moniker?)
Master-slave/servant relations can’t be described as meaningful. It was the early waves of unlike immigration that saw large numbers of founding American stock develop relations with those who were visibly different (not greatly different compared to what came later, but certainly different enough at the time). How do you go back to those pristine pre-contact conditions? I don’t see any way that can be done. I don’t understand Parrott’s hammer/nail analogy here. Hammers aren’t defined by their relationship to nails because people can immediately see plenty of other uses for the hammer besides hitting nails with it. In any case, you don’t require the conditions that prevailed while whites were hard-nosed racialists; that’s a good thing, since you can’t unring that bell anyway. But, to continue with the analogies, you can, to a certain degree (and maybe eventually a complete degree) racially unbake the American cake. Those who are undecided will require reasons to become committed, and those who are opposed will require reasons to become unopposed. If you can achieve those to a sufficient degree then any actions you take may actually prove fruitful.
Oh, and I take my hate off to you if you actually read all those books.
Crapandchaos,
I would say that I read a lot. Ten books per week is more than a mere lot, though. Do you read ten books per week? Do you know anyone that does (or is willing to claim it)?
Anyway, you (inadvertently, as always) bring up a good point: that region you mention is mixed. And nobody there considers it a problem. That’s prima facie evidence that race, by your narrow definition, isn’t of the “cardinal importance” that a Matt Parrott claims for it (with respect to how people feel about it). So while it may vex you (and obviously does), it shouldn’t surprise you that so many people have a rather blase attitude about it.
As for what uncle Adolf said, yes, you guys are basically control freaks. Those who oppose you should emblazon that fact across the skies — WNs want to control everything you think and do and make sure it accords with their conceptions of racial propriety, and if it means filling your little heads with their silly little myths, so be it; your personal freedom and personal dignity are the least of their concerns. But take heart, little peon, because you’ll have loads of Great Art (you’ll be swimming in it) and racial specimens of the highest order for you to gaze upon and fall to your knees and worship aplenty. And of course from the perspective of racial protagonists, whose own feelings on the matter are clearly the most important thing in the universe, ennui and anomie will have been held at bay — woohoo — making it all worthwhile, regardless of the result. I suppose that’s a “compelling vision” — to those who find it compelling. The trick is to make it compelling to those who don’t, and this sort of thing, this sort of supreme disgust with the world that fuels the budding nazi in you (CC, and others of your ilk) isn’t it.
“. . .Oh, and I take my hate off to you. . .”
“you guys are basically control freaks. Those who oppose you should emblazon that fact across the skies — WNs want to control everything you think and do and make sure it accords with their conceptions of racial propriety, and if it means filling your little heads with their silly little myths, so be it; ”
As opposed to politically-correct multiculturalists, who would never propagandize any myth that promote their conceptions of propriety.
How fortunate we are that the Left has no control freaks, and would never seek to control populations.
I love Big Brother.
Silver,
I’m not sure why I got drug into this, but I don’t believe it’s appropriate to label me a “control freak”. I don’t want to force White folks to join the White American nationality. I don’t want to impose a single religion or mythology on them, or even stop interracial relationships. People who wish to have interracial relationships and interracial children have my full respect. But in having done so, they’ve voluntarily opted themselves out of being White Americans.
Basically, what you’re doing here is comparing a very optimistic vision of integration with a very pessimistic vision of segregation. It’s like your idea of racially mixed communities was arrived at exclusively through hanging out on affluent college campuses. Things haven’t been working out that well and the overwhelming majority of White Americans are implicitly segregationist, rejecting participation in truly integrated environments (while dating the obligatory Black girl in college and makes paeans to the regime’s rhetoric).
This absurd characterization of America’s situation, which even at its best is hopelessly unsustainable and historically atypical, is contrasted against the fevered fantasies of the most creepy falconers in our movement. The Japanese enjoy being racially homogeneous without being Hitler fetishists. Mexico is for Mexicans, and yet they don’t bother having a “day of the rope” for homosexuals. The immoral, obsessive, and “revulsionist” beliefs so pervasive throughout this movement are stumbling blocks for our movement, and are not inherent to nationalism itself.
“. . .I’m not sure why I got drug into this. . .”
>>>Drug vs. dragged?
what makes people use the word drug instead of dragged, and in some very SPECIAL cases, the word drugged? the past tense of drag is dragged. the word drug should never be associated with any kind of pulling action. it should only be used when referring to some type of medicinal or illegal substance.
who told people that it’s drug?? and can i meet the person who started this trend so that i may slap them for their atrocious usage of english.
>>>Because of “drink, drank, and drunk”,
lazy and/ or uneducated people tend to think the word
“think” works the same way:
think, thank, thunk
or even the word “bring”:
bring, brang, brung
in laziness and confusion, they thought the past tense of drag is drug
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070627190006AA6PvuE
Well, now that we have had our lesson…
TabulaRaza,
It’s dialectical. I also use ain’t and y’all as I see fit in the comments, since it’s conversational. I try to use the Queen’s English in the posts. I’ll try to avoid infuriating you with my past participles in my future comments.
I thought “Silver” was the “gentile metal”? 🙂 At least that’s what Father Coughlin used to say, back in the day.
I guess I’m staying on the lighter side, by commenting on the Star Trek part. That liberal show is full of symbols and “lessons”, many of which can be interpreted in many ways. One of the most interesting species in the Star Trek Universe is “The Dominion”. Below are two snippets from the Wikipedia article. Does this sound familiar?
The Dominion was created over nine-thousand years prior to the events of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, when the persecuted Changelings (a non-humanoid race of shape-shifters) decided that the only way they could defend themselves against the “solids” (as the Changelings call all other races) was by bringing them under their control.
The actual organization and operation of the Dominion within their Gamma Quadrant empire has not been widely explored. What little is known suggests that the Dominion operated like an old fashioned “protection racket” with the Vorta/Jem’Hadar keeping the member worlds in check with a combination of platitudes and violence – in the episode “The Jem’Hadar”, Eris explains “The Dominion decides that you have something that they want, and they come and take it, whether by negotiation or by force.”.
By dominating the Solids, the Dominion believes that they are preempting the Solids’ natural urge to persecute and kill the Founders. One race was condemned to slow decay and death for refusing the Dominion (“The Quickening”).
John Walters,
As opposed to politically-correct multiculturalists, who would never propagandize any myth that promote their conceptions of propriety.
How fortunate we are that the Left has no control freaks, and would never seek to control populations.
I love Big Brother.
Lefties are control freaks, too. You’re not telling me anything I don’t know.
Look, I’m not opposed to myths per se. But I am opposed to indoctrinating people with them and then policing them to maintain adherence.
Referring to myths wasn’t the best way of making my point that people like “Captainchaos,” whose racial passion burns more intensely than the sun, take such an inordinate interest in people’s private beliefs and practices because they want every waking moment to be a celebration of Racial Life — there clearly being no other good reason to want to live. (Just look at the way they sneer at everything most people regard as “normal.”)
Matt Parrott,
I think you misunderstood me.
My comments about “racially mixed” (technically true, but not typically seen that way by the inhabitants) societies across SE Europe (and all around the Mediterranean and beyond, for that matter), in which a large proportion of the population is, to keep it very simple, “very white” and a large proportion, continuing to keep it very simple, “is not,” with this state of affairs generally being a non-issue, was in reply to Captainchaos’ remarks.
I’m well aware of what “racially mixed societies” entails in the western context. I get it. I really do. And I’m all for undoing it. But that shouldn’t mean tossing the baby out with the bathwater. It’s obviously not true that zero, zilch, zip, nada good has come out of the multiracial experiment, so why sneer at the effort to retain what good has? It sure as hell can’t be because so sneering helps your cause. And yet that’s what so many of these nutzi types (who dominate your movement) want to claim — that practically everything for the last couple of hundred (occasionally, couple thousand) years has been horribly, horribly, wrong; and only they — of course — can possibly put it right.
The immoral, obsessive, and “revulsionist” beliefs so pervasive throughout this movement are stumbling blocks for our movement, and are not inherent to nationalism itself.
Yes, stumbling blocks. Tremendous stumbling blocks.
Do you really want to waste another twenty years following in the failed footsteps of the Instaurationists?
Where I’m from, the easiest way to bring people around to your view is by taking what they already believe about the world and helping them see how your position is an extension of what they already believe; or that your views are somehow implied by their view of the world. (Eg equality among members of one group = equality among all members of all groups.) You don’t scream at them that hey, idiot, everything you believe about life is dead wrong — which is the approach you’re average WN essentially takes. (Isn’t it? Am I wrong about that?)
Silver,
I’m glad you brought up an example of how racially diverse populations already do co-exist rather peacefully under the political umbrella of a single nation-state.
From what I’ve observed, many WNs seem to view the current situation in very binary terms: forced separation or forced mixing. I think this belies the reality of a broad continuum between those endpoints. Plenty of people already do voluntarily separate into racially homogeneous communities, with little conflict between them. Whites tend to move where other whites live, somalis with other somalis, chinese with other chinese, etc etc.
I would suggest that the often-repeated formula of “diversity + proximity = war” is too simplistic does not hold true for all situations. An improvement to the formula might be “diversity + proximity + X = war” where “X” might be scarcity, historical animus, disenfranchisement, etc.
Let me add that I’m not proposing that WNs should be happy with this state of affairs, or that they shouldn’t have the right to desire their own self-sovereignty, but to the extent that one points to racial incompatibility as a raison d’être for ethnic nationalism, I don’t believe that argument always holds true.
One can find many extant examples of peaceable ethnic enclaves in the US, but I’ll just list one for the sake of brevity: Silicon Valley.
Despite recent economic problems and foreign competition, Silicon Valley has been, and still is, the technological innovation engine of the entire world. From top to bottom these companies are extraordinarily diverse, not because they’re forced to, but rather as a consequence of cut-throat competition driving a global quest for talent. I think demonstrates a fundamental difference between left-wing and right-wing multiculturalism.
In the corridors of these world-beating companies you’ll find almost every race and ethnicity imaginable, all working together peacefully. I’ve personally observed jewish and arab engineers getting along. The children of all these tech workers often play and associate together, and an organic balance is struck between ethnic traditions and modern ones. There are plenty of other “Smartmanistans” where this also holds true.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that WNs should approve of or endorse such an ethnic rainbow soup, but rather that it doesn’t always lead to war and conflict.
Silver,
The critical factor is that many of the people in the movement are historical hobbyists, autistic types who understand the situation in purely statistical and factual terms, and obsessive “haters” who really have it out for non-Whites for whatever personal reason. People who are in this due to a genuine spirit of stewardship toward their White American countrymen don’t exhibit the sort of pathological behavior you describe.
As the movement gathers momentum, those people will gradually disappear. The historical hobbyists will lose interest as we fail to remain true to their fantasy quests. The autistic types will move on to different heretical facts. The haters will define our failure to be hateful as weakness, attacking us from the rear and trying to scare off decent people. They don’t matter nearly as much as you think they do, and their failure to even fathom practical politics assures that they don’t pose the grave moral danger you’re imagining.
In the corridors of these world-beating companies you’ll find almost every race and ethnicity imaginable, all working together peacefully. I’ve personally observed jewish and arab engineers getting along. The children of all these tech workers often play and associate together, and an organic balance is struck between ethnic traditions and modern ones. There are plenty of other “Smartmanistans” where this also holds true.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not suggesting that WNs should approve of or endorse such an ethnic rainbow soup, but rather that it doesn’t always lead to war and conflict.
Great points Randy.
However, the one significant caveat is that areas like Silicon Valley and other areas where racially-diverse peoples get along is that they are all a very self-selecting population of their countries-of-origin, and they all work for a higher entity and authority (in this case computer technology and corporatism), for which they are all more-than-amply compensated for, both financially and in a host and myriad of other ways.
In other words, the various ethny’s of what you term “Smartmanistans” have more than enough incentives, and especially rewards in place, to keep amicable relations possible between the peoples.
The real challenges of this really falls heavily and disproportionately on the shoulders and backs of the average, common folks of all race’s and ethnicities the world over, and not just in the United States (as we have so often have seen since the end of the Cold War and the break-up/fall of most Communist and Eastern Bloc countries).
Randy,
The smartest and most capable men in a society are the natural patriarchs. Of course they can enjoy themselves and do well while ignoring their folk. Grown men can make more money and party more often if they don’t marry a woman, support her, and do a comprehensive job of raising several children. That is “Smartmanistan”. But not all your children will be elites, and those children will be nationless. A healthy marriage of elites and folks requires an elite committed to stewardship and a folk committed to sacrifice.
The situation isn’t sustainable, and eventually a healthier society with a noble elite mobilizing a loyal folk (like China) will sweep our decadent mass of raceless, religionless, and cultureless pleasure-seekers aside like dust in the wind.
Amerikaner,
In other words, the various ethny’s of what you term “Smartmanistans” have more than enough incentives, and especially rewards in place, to keep amicable relations possible between the peoples.
Maybe America’s something else — and when I consider the racial types and numbers of them involved, I’m inclined to believe it is — but such amicable relations are possible — and routine — at levels much lower than “Smartmanistan.” Certainly they are here where I live.
This isn’t to cheer-lead for such societal arrangements. Personally, I find them fantastically underwhelming, uninspiring, strained, forced, antiseptic. But you can’t proceed on a faulty understanding of what people perceive or experience in such conditions; and to deny that they’re ever tolerable or enjoyable can only continue to hobble racialism/WN’s attempts to broaden its reach.
The rules that work for elites do not necessarily work for the masses. In fact, one of the distinguishing characteristics of an elite is its exemption from the rules of the common folk. If I’m rich, I can buy my way ought of a lot of trouble. If I’m much smarter than average, I can see my way better and avoid a lot of trouble. If I’m well-placed, lots of troubles never come to me. If I’m big enough, I even get to make the rules.
The information technology elites don’t have to worry about most of what we do, because their physical and financial security are pretty much guaranteed. And, as serious math fiends, they have a culture of their own, an international culture which most people of any race cannot join. Using Silicon Valley as a social model makes as much sense as choosing Hollywood or Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Just guessing here, but I’d imagine you don’t get a lot of Africans in Silicon Valley. Some racial stews are more compatible than others. And even Africans can blend in, until their numbers reach critical mass.
“I’m glad you brought up an example of how racially diverse populations already do co-exist rather peacefully under the political umbrella of a single nation-state.”
Usually, this co-existing peacefully comes about because one of the two groups, or another group, totally dominates and does so by using force.
What, exactly, is the situation in these racially diverse populations? As I recall, Brazil, for example, is run by a government, or at least a force, that is not exactly what many consider “good.” I seem to remember they have had, and might still have, for all I know, “death squads” and the like in order to control the population.
Moreover, there are some serious, shall we say, problems concerning many or all of these countries and places you are speaking of. I understand, for example, that the Mediteranian is a place where small boys are commonly and openly used for sex by men. I also recall that these places are, contrary to the rosy picture you suggest, very, very violent and a good place to be murdered, even in comparison to the U.S., and that many aspects of the culture there are considered “over the top” by even many of the Liberals here. And if I’m not mistaken, correct me if I’m wrong, the drug use in many of these countries is also beyond and ridiculous even compared to our own.
In short, I think you and Silver are skating around some thin ice and telling us it is thick.
You asserted “One can find many extant examples of peaceable ethnic enclaves in the US, but I’ll just list one for the sake of brevity: Silicon Valley.”
Well, why don’t you go ahead and cite a few more examples and give us some specific details about the nature of these enclaves? I’m interested in debating and analysing this premise of so many multiracial countries, communities, etc., being not at all what we WN’s are under the impression they are, so I for one don’t mind if you forego brevity for the time being.
You go on to assert:
“In the corridors of these world-beating companies you’ll find almost every race and ethnicity imaginable, all working together peacefully. I’ve personally observed jewish and arab engineers getting along. The children of all these tech workers often play and associate together, and an organic balance is struck between ethnic traditions and modern ones. There are plenty of other “Smartmanistans” where this also holds true. ”
Really?! This is remarkable, because all of my life I have both observed and heard from nearly every quarter that the environment in, around, and amongst the workers and executives in these “world beating” companies is, and is bluntly called, “cut throat.”
Why don’t you go ahead and expand and give us some details on this, too? Otherwise, I will be up front and honest with you here and tell you that at this point I think you are just telling tales to propagate the notion that multiracialism and diversity has “benefits.”