“people are understandably wary of strong ethnic, especially racial, identification. They see skinheads and others who loudly assert they are proud to be white,12 and conclude that ethnic hatred is an inevitable sequela of ethnic pride. The truth is more complicated. Racists are motivated by hatred, not by pride. This point emerges over and over in the testimonies of ex-skinhead Frank Meeink. In a statement from 2017, Meeink describes the recruitment tactics he witnessed while part of the subculture, recounting that outsiders were fed lines like “Come be proud of your heritage.” Yet the pitch, he says, was built on deception. “[N]ot once did these guys talk about their heritage in meetings,” he notes, adding, “we never talked about what our culture did, it was what they’re doing.””
- This is a false concession, or rather it includes 2 false premises - 1) That hatred is in and of itself bad, and 2) that it’s presence shows the skinheads lack of interest in his own ethnic identity. Let me start with 2.
Would you say (iq-elevated) fish did not have a strong fish identity because they didn’t ever discuss water? Likewise, many cultural practices are so implicit that discussing them is unnatural. In fact, they only come to the foreground in comparison with other cultures.
Not having sex with and marrying your 1st cousin or uncle is just normal. Not marrying at 15, and not marrying ur cousin is just normal Anglo-Saxon and other hajnali behavior for the past 500 yrs. No one even thinks of it, until one day they come across freaks who marry their 1st cousins.
No one has an ‘I’m not a criminal’ identity except in the context of living around a bunch of criminals. U get the gist. The racist lives in water, and someone pours toxic sludge in it by the metric ton. Then when he complains, they say, ‘but u don’t even value water, I’ve never heard u talking about water except in the context of how much u hate sludge’.
Now let’s return to 1. Is love not a valid emotion? Is hatred not the normal and valid response to those who would destroy what you love? Basically everyone agrees on this, the case against hatred is merely that ‘race is irrelevant, and the extremists are a small minority… (paraphrasing normal discourse, not this article)’ The hereditarian and accurate observational position is that no it’s not a small minority, behaviors and values you dislike and which hurt you are currently inseparable from the vast majority of people in at least some other groups.
Unless you are going to whip up, out of thin air a bizarre terminal value that hatred is always bad - there is no coherent case against racial hatred though there may be one for some specific instances of it. It's categorical demonization was always built on a lie, the lie that we were similar and basically the same when we aren’t.
So true. If ever there was a cliche concept in need of interrogation it's Human Rights. Who exactly in a secular age is supposed to guarantee them.... some stupid bureaucracy (national or international) or some highly corruptible lawyering class? Human Responsibilities.... barely ever gets a mention in this vast post war Human Rights cantfest.
I don’t believe in such a thing as ‘universal human rights.’ Different societies and peoples have different standards about such things and ‘rights’ are contingent on place and circumstance.
This article was somewhat interesting but it went to a realm that is beyond delusional when it tried to assert that America is some kind of European melting pot, and that Jews historically, and Italians in America, "peacefully coexisted". Italians didn't face scrutiny from Southerners because of their friendliness towards blacks, it was because they were totally out of control and troublesome, to put it lightly. Look at things like the New Orleans lynchings, and the incident with Sacco and Vanzetti, who were George Floyd before George Floyd. There has even been significant tension between Americans and Germans in America throughout US history (See Benjamin Franklin's sentiments on Germans, and major tensions during WWI and WWII) so to suggest that even more diverse groups than Germans could assimilate easily is astonishingly ludicrous. To put it succinctly and generally; to be American is to be a unique iteration of Anglo.
Basically this. The reason why there was historic hostility towards groups like the Germans, Irish, Italians, and Slavs was because they were ethnic aliens to the American populace who were of British Protestant stock. Although overtime they more or less assimilated to some degree to Anglo American culture too the point that many White Americans are a ethnic mix of British, German, and Irish generally speaking since these 3 groups are very related to each other. You still see some degree of tensions or rather separateness between northern and southern Europeans. Also because many Americans were against the idea of said different groups of Europeans not just because they weren’t Anglo but because they were also Catholic which creates even more tension since Europe had multiple wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics most especially Britain. It’s no surprise that Irish, Germans, and Italians were seen with suspicion because of it. The founding Anglo stock didn’t want to deal with interethnic tension because it would destroy their new found independence from the British monarchy that they fought for.
Presumably, the reason that genocide is worse than mere mass murder is the irreparable loss of genetic and cultural diversity. Mongrelization accomplishes the same end without a shot fired.
When this happens to wildlife it's always condemned. Scottish wildcats are now "genomically extinct" due to mongrelization with domestic housecats:
Presumably, this is a contemptible loss of biodiversity that environmental conservationists seek to rectify. Inflict the same fate on human groups however, and this is somehow something to be celebrated. This wasn't always the case! The first environmental conservationists opposed Human racemixing for the same reasons.
I think maybe you should qualify it by saying, "It's considered wrong for white people to want to marry white people, but it's considered okay for Blacks, Mexicans, and other races to marry within their race."
As with all things, the only people who can't be proud of their ethnicity are white people.
"As with all things, the only people who can't be proud of their ethnicity are white people."
I agree with the gist of your comment, but I would quibble with the phrase 'proud of their ethnicity.' I contend that one should not be proud of something they had no influence over. Perhaps adjectives such as glad, happy, pleased, or some such would be better.
It is only white ethnic identity which is disallowed. Ethnic identities of all other varieties are not only allowed but heavily encouraged and celebrated. So, while everything in this article is obvious and correct, it only bears repeating with regards to white identity in specific. No one is bothered by any of this when it comes to Jews, or blacks, or any other race. Why is it that whites must be singled out for de-racination?
Because Whites are historically known to be to more prone to be independent thinkers compared to other races who naturally are more collectivist. It’s why we like small limited governments headed by merited individuals, capitalism, freedom of speech, and ability to own firearms. We’ve also been known to reform our governments be it especially through revolution. Which is what they fear most. Why else you think the elites love democracy whilst invading our countries with nonwhites. Because with these two in hand they can easily control the institutions of control. Whites must create separate independent institutions filled with people who are loyal to the survival of their race. Groups such as the Amish or the Orthodox Jews are a good example that we must embrace in our own way.
I write from within a very happy inter-ethnic marriage; still, what the author says is true, and I agree with nearly all of it. Like many people in my situation who are in fact, happy, I must chalk up to luck what are extremely unlikely things.
I disagree, however, with the point about middleman minorities. True, they bring material benefits, but their spiritual effect is like dry rot. Other minorities eventually face a decision: become like everyone else, or leave. Not middlemen. Their strategy is wholly different: define the host's essence itself in terms of exchange.
It's silly to pretend this isn't the case, and to suggest that the middleman strategy is alike to a third-generation Italian who still marries Italian-ancestry persons.
"In The Jewish Phenomenon, business executive Steven Silbiger explained what members of all ethnic groups can learn from the success of his (Jewish) ethnic group. Silbiger urged readers to acquaint their children with their “ancestral homeland.”² “Having a background and a heritage,” he advised, “helps immunize children from negative influences.”³ Solidarity with those who share one’s heritage is another ingredient: Chapter 2 is entitled Take Care of Your Own and They Will Take Care of You."
Given evidence like this, straight from the horse's mouth, it astonishes me that people continue to deny the sheer POWAH of Jewish ethnic nepotism in favour of 'Oh they're just smarter and harder-working get over it CONSPIRATARD'.
The ultimate result/aim of "diversity" is less white people both in terms of numbers and prominence males particularly which highlights that white women can benefit from government and corporate drives for it. While white women participate in intermarriage and miscegenation at up to 10x the rate of white males
I guess you're talking about REAL Americans (those some call Amerikaners, long since a minority ethnic group). As for mass American culture in the present...who can say what it is? We're ALL Americans now...
Contra the Writer and In Defense of Hatred
“people are understandably wary of strong ethnic, especially racial, identification. They see skinheads and others who loudly assert they are proud to be white,12 and conclude that ethnic hatred is an inevitable sequela of ethnic pride. The truth is more complicated. Racists are motivated by hatred, not by pride. This point emerges over and over in the testimonies of ex-skinhead Frank Meeink. In a statement from 2017, Meeink describes the recruitment tactics he witnessed while part of the subculture, recounting that outsiders were fed lines like “Come be proud of your heritage.” Yet the pitch, he says, was built on deception. “[N]ot once did these guys talk about their heritage in meetings,” he notes, adding, “we never talked about what our culture did, it was what they’re doing.””
- This is a false concession, or rather it includes 2 false premises - 1) That hatred is in and of itself bad, and 2) that it’s presence shows the skinheads lack of interest in his own ethnic identity. Let me start with 2.
Would you say (iq-elevated) fish did not have a strong fish identity because they didn’t ever discuss water? Likewise, many cultural practices are so implicit that discussing them is unnatural. In fact, they only come to the foreground in comparison with other cultures.
Not having sex with and marrying your 1st cousin or uncle is just normal. Not marrying at 15, and not marrying ur cousin is just normal Anglo-Saxon and other hajnali behavior for the past 500 yrs. No one even thinks of it, until one day they come across freaks who marry their 1st cousins.
No one has an ‘I’m not a criminal’ identity except in the context of living around a bunch of criminals. U get the gist. The racist lives in water, and someone pours toxic sludge in it by the metric ton. Then when he complains, they say, ‘but u don’t even value water, I’ve never heard u talking about water except in the context of how much u hate sludge’.
Now let’s return to 1. Is love not a valid emotion? Is hatred not the normal and valid response to those who would destroy what you love? Basically everyone agrees on this, the case against hatred is merely that ‘race is irrelevant, and the extremists are a small minority… (paraphrasing normal discourse, not this article)’ The hereditarian and accurate observational position is that no it’s not a small minority, behaviors and values you dislike and which hurt you are currently inseparable from the vast majority of people in at least some other groups.
Unless you are going to whip up, out of thin air a bizarre terminal value that hatred is always bad - there is no coherent case against racial hatred though there may be one for some specific instances of it. It's categorical demonization was always built on a lie, the lie that we were similar and basically the same when we aren’t.
excellent
I mean fish can't talk obv but the gist is clear
There’s no such thing as ‘Universal Human Rights’ though would agree all people should be treated humanely and decently circumstances permitting.
So true. If ever there was a cliche concept in need of interrogation it's Human Rights. Who exactly in a secular age is supposed to guarantee them.... some stupid bureaucracy (national or international) or some highly corruptible lawyering class? Human Responsibilities.... barely ever gets a mention in this vast post war Human Rights cantfest.
Yes why are 'universal human rights' necessary for natural ethnic preference to be morally(?) acceptable?
I don’t believe in such a thing as ‘universal human rights.’ Different societies and peoples have different standards about such things and ‘rights’ are contingent on place and circumstance.
agreed
Stick with your own, everyone will be happier, healthier, and better because of it.
By and large this is true. Certainly the exceptions should not have any effect on anything of consequence (eg immigration policy).
This article was somewhat interesting but it went to a realm that is beyond delusional when it tried to assert that America is some kind of European melting pot, and that Jews historically, and Italians in America, "peacefully coexisted". Italians didn't face scrutiny from Southerners because of their friendliness towards blacks, it was because they were totally out of control and troublesome, to put it lightly. Look at things like the New Orleans lynchings, and the incident with Sacco and Vanzetti, who were George Floyd before George Floyd. There has even been significant tension between Americans and Germans in America throughout US history (See Benjamin Franklin's sentiments on Germans, and major tensions during WWI and WWII) so to suggest that even more diverse groups than Germans could assimilate easily is astonishingly ludicrous. To put it succinctly and generally; to be American is to be a unique iteration of Anglo.
Basically this. The reason why there was historic hostility towards groups like the Germans, Irish, Italians, and Slavs was because they were ethnic aliens to the American populace who were of British Protestant stock. Although overtime they more or less assimilated to some degree to Anglo American culture too the point that many White Americans are a ethnic mix of British, German, and Irish generally speaking since these 3 groups are very related to each other. You still see some degree of tensions or rather separateness between northern and southern Europeans. Also because many Americans were against the idea of said different groups of Europeans not just because they weren’t Anglo but because they were also Catholic which creates even more tension since Europe had multiple wars of religion between Protestants and Catholics most especially Britain. It’s no surprise that Irish, Germans, and Italians were seen with suspicion because of it. The founding Anglo stock didn’t want to deal with interethnic tension because it would destroy their new found independence from the British monarchy that they fought for.
Presumably, the reason that genocide is worse than mere mass murder is the irreparable loss of genetic and cultural diversity. Mongrelization accomplishes the same end without a shot fired.
When this happens to wildlife it's always condemned. Scottish wildcats are now "genomically extinct" due to mongrelization with domestic housecats:
https://www.science.org/content/article/scienceadviser-scotland-s-wildcats-are-genomically-extinct
Same with Cuban Crocodiles:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/saving-the-endangered-cuban-crocodile1/#
Presumably, this is a contemptible loss of biodiversity that environmental conservationists seek to rectify. Inflict the same fate on human groups however, and this is somehow something to be celebrated. This wasn't always the case! The first environmental conservationists opposed Human racemixing for the same reasons.
It is only to be celebrated when it is inflicted specifically upon whites.
I think maybe you should qualify it by saying, "It's considered wrong for white people to want to marry white people, but it's considered okay for Blacks, Mexicans, and other races to marry within their race."
As with all things, the only people who can't be proud of their ethnicity are white people.
"As with all things, the only people who can't be proud of their ethnicity are white people."
I agree with the gist of your comment, but I would quibble with the phrase 'proud of their ethnicity.' I contend that one should not be proud of something they had no influence over. Perhaps adjectives such as glad, happy, pleased, or some such would be better.
It is only white ethnic identity which is disallowed. Ethnic identities of all other varieties are not only allowed but heavily encouraged and celebrated. So, while everything in this article is obvious and correct, it only bears repeating with regards to white identity in specific. No one is bothered by any of this when it comes to Jews, or blacks, or any other race. Why is it that whites must be singled out for de-racination?
Because Whites are historically known to be to more prone to be independent thinkers compared to other races who naturally are more collectivist. It’s why we like small limited governments headed by merited individuals, capitalism, freedom of speech, and ability to own firearms. We’ve also been known to reform our governments be it especially through revolution. Which is what they fear most. Why else you think the elites love democracy whilst invading our countries with nonwhites. Because with these two in hand they can easily control the institutions of control. Whites must create separate independent institutions filled with people who are loyal to the survival of their race. Groups such as the Amish or the Orthodox Jews are a good example that we must embrace in our own way.
I write from within a very happy inter-ethnic marriage; still, what the author says is true, and I agree with nearly all of it. Like many people in my situation who are in fact, happy, I must chalk up to luck what are extremely unlikely things.
I disagree, however, with the point about middleman minorities. True, they bring material benefits, but their spiritual effect is like dry rot. Other minorities eventually face a decision: become like everyone else, or leave. Not middlemen. Their strategy is wholly different: define the host's essence itself in terms of exchange.
It's silly to pretend this isn't the case, and to suggest that the middleman strategy is alike to a third-generation Italian who still marries Italian-ancestry persons.
"In The Jewish Phenomenon, business executive Steven Silbiger explained what members of all ethnic groups can learn from the success of his (Jewish) ethnic group. Silbiger urged readers to acquaint their children with their “ancestral homeland.”² “Having a background and a heritage,” he advised, “helps immunize children from negative influences.”³ Solidarity with those who share one’s heritage is another ingredient: Chapter 2 is entitled Take Care of Your Own and They Will Take Care of You."
Given evidence like this, straight from the horse's mouth, it astonishes me that people continue to deny the sheer POWAH of Jewish ethnic nepotism in favour of 'Oh they're just smarter and harder-working get over it CONSPIRATARD'.
The ultimate result/aim of "diversity" is less white people both in terms of numbers and prominence males particularly which highlights that white women can benefit from government and corporate drives for it. While white women participate in intermarriage and miscegenation at up to 10x the rate of white males
So no assimilation? That way lies atomisation and chaos. Qui Bono?
It all depends on what can be ‘assimilated.’ Some peoples and cultures can’t be.
Very few cultures outside north Western Europe and Scandinavia can be assimilated into the US. Almost all legal and illegal immigrants can’t.
I guess you're talking about REAL Americans (those some call Amerikaners, long since a minority ethnic group). As for mass American culture in the present...who can say what it is? We're ALL Americans now...
I think you would find this essay - with its large section on "when America still loved itself" - an interesting read: https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/take-me-to-your-experts
Thanx will check it
Seem to remember you from somewhere!