Tuesday, April 28, 2009

White Guilt vs White Pride

Today in the United States and most of the White world, as soon as a White child is old enough to understand language, he is told that he should feel guilt for the crimes of his ancestors. Guilt for finding, conquering, enslaving, and killing off non-Whites around the globe... and littering in the process. Guilt, not for his own crimes, but for the crimes of other people of the same race.

But he is also told that he should feel no pride in the amazing achievements of his race. No pride in the pyramids and the Parthenon, no pride in the arch and the dome, no pride in White science and technology and medicine, no pride in the glories of European painting and sculpture and music, no pride in Plato and Shakespeare and Dostoevsky, no pride in the exploration of the globe and the conquest of space. Pride, not in his own achievements, but in the achievements of other people of the same race.

But if it is reasonable to feel White guilt, then it is reasonable to feel White pride.

This is a subversive thought, for if one does a balance sheet comparing reasons for White guilt and White pride, Whites might discover that they have far more to be proud of than guilty of. They might then decide to resist their dispossession.

Faced with that prospect, the advocates of White dispossession will retreat to the last refuge of ethno-political scoundrels and cowards: individualism. They will piously lecture us that there are no groups, only individuals -- that even if the White race has produced more creative individuals than the other races combined, only the individuals, not the race, should be honored -- that the only person entitled to feel proud of Edison's achievements was Edison, because he earned it -- that nobody has the right to a pride that he has not earned by his own efforts -- that people who do feel pride in the achievements of their racial brethren are losers who need to derive self-esteem from the achievements of others because they have no achievements of their own -- and so forth.

The individualist argument goes as follows: the only pride we have a right to is pride in our own achievements. Racial pride is pride in the achievements of others. Therefore, we have no right to racial pride.

I will grant that we have not, strictly speaking, "earned" the pride we feel in the achievements of others. But the false premise of the individualist argument is that we have no right to things that we have not earned. We call something of value that we receive without earning it a "gift."

It is a distortion of gift-giving to treat it as a disguised exchange. Not every human relationship is a matter of trade. The fact that some putative gifts are disguised exchanges does not imply that all gifts are disguised exchanges. It just proves that some apparent gifts are not gifts at all. People usually feel good when they make others happy by giving gifts. But that does not imply an exchange, unless it is an exchange with oneself: one gives up something to feel good about oneself.

But does it make sense to describe the goods passed on by long-dead ancestors and kinsmen as "gifts"? I think so. It certainly makes no sense to call it an exchange relationship, since there is no way to repay benefactors who are dead or anonymous. Moreover, one of the functions of the Last Will and Testament is to confer gifts after one's death when there can be no possibility of exchange. One can even give gifts to complete strangers and distant future generations.

A creative genius might take money in exchange for his works during his lifetime. But after he is dead, his collected works become a gift to future generations. We certainly cannot return anything to Aristotle or Galileo or Mozart of value equal to what they have given us. They have given us too much and are not around to receive payment.

There is no question that we have a "right" to things that we receive as gifts. If racial pride can be understood as a gift, then we have a right to that feeling.
But when someone gives us a gift, we naturally want to transform it into an exchange. Receiving a gift puts us in someone's debt, which is not a pleasant feeling. But exchange puts us on equal footing, which is more consistent with our sense of dignity and desire for independence. But a gift, if it truly is a gift, is not a matter of exchange. So we satisfy ourselves with the pretense of an exchange by repaying our benefactors with words, by saying "thank you."

But how do I thank people who are anonymous or long-dead: my distant forbears and the racial kinsmen who make me proud? Certainly not by resting on their laurels or by making their achievements a substitute for mine, which is the puerile individualist accusation.

First, we can become worthy recipients of what they have given us by learning to appreciate our history and culture. Perhaps even become culture-heroes.

Second, since it is impossible to return their patrimony to them, we can at least pass it on to future generations, so that they can continue to live on through their works.

Third, we can thank them by making ourselves worthy of the pride they have given us, by achieving something of greatness ourselves.

Fourth, we can work to preserve and pass on the genetic heritage that has made the cultural heritage possible. And this is key as to why us who share the same genetic ancestry have a greater right, feeling of identity and connection to the roots of these geniuses, because in us, they live on. In our physical appearance they manifest themselves, as well as their genes, which in relation to the environment has managed to produce these geniuses. It's a product of the factors genes and environment, and since we share their genes, they being our ancestors and we their descendants, we're obviously proud of our heritage of sharing the same capacity;

"Nothing in the world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent." - Calvin Coolidge

Second highest IQ in combination with widest associative horizon, second most male-hormones and testosterone and with most low latent inhibition, protected by regression to the mean, inherited, is what has allowed us to become what we are, having a great capacity.

Race is an extended family

Race starts with boy meets girl, followed by baby. Now the crucial step is point out that the reason extended families provide such perfect analogies for races is because they are actually the same thing. A RACE IS SIMPLY AN EXTREMELY EXTENDED FAMILY.

Extended families share a lot of genes (the next time you're looking at a picture of another Kennedy caught in a scandal, notice how much he looks like other Kennedys), their genetic distinctiveness fades back into the average for the general population with which they intermarry as you move outward to more distant relatives or you move forward or backward in time. The partial exceptions are extended families that intermarry heavily. The most famous examples are the crowned heads of Europe, who for the last two centuries or could reasonably be considered to be one clan. Among Europe's extended family of royals, inbreeding has kept traits like hemophilia, weak chins, and jug ears around longer and more abundantly than would be found in a family with a greater aversion against first cousins marrying. Most families down through history have married almost exclusively within some sort of population that's more restricted than the entire human species. Thus, while traits unique to a family fade with time (forward or backward) and outward to more distant relatives, a racial group's biological traits can remain quite stable over fairly long periods. Of course, families differ, and races may be thought of as extended families. Just as I feel more affinity, solidarity, and find it easier to associate with my own culture and people, I have more affinity, solidarity and find it easier to associate with my own family and it's ways.

I feel a sense of pride of belonging to my family, just as I feel a sense of pride belonging to this race, because who I am is a part of what I am. I am the product of my parents and a part of the family. Just as I'm a product of and by birth belong to a race and are likely to inherent all of our strengths and weaknesses, which are genetic. I'm proud of my mother and father more so than I am of a stranger, because I relate to them in various ways, by inherency.

I like the way our people look. I want my grandchildren to look like my grandparents. I don’t want them to look like Anwar Sadat or Fu Man Chu or Whoopi Goldberg. I want them to look the way my people have looked for thousands of years, and for that I have no apology.

Obviously, there is more to it than esthetics. A nation is not just a cultural continuity, it is a biological continuity. Given determined, world-wide resistance to assimilation, especially when assimilation must cross racial lines, cultural continuity is impossible without biological continuity.

The desire to see one’s people survive and prosper is natural, healthy, and moral. Nor need it imply the slightest hostility towards other groups. This is the parallel I would draw: I love my children more than I love the children of strangers. I love them not because they are more intelligent or better looking or more gifted or more musical or more athletic than everyone else. I love them because they are mine, and I make tremendous sacrifices for them I would never make for anyone else. This does not mean I am hostile to the children of others. I can be quite fond of some of them. But my children come first.

We have larger loyalties that are analogous to our feelings for our children. Whether it is our nation, our ethnicity, or our race, there are broader groups for which we feel a familial loyalty. Our nation or race is, in effect, our extended family in the largest sense, and our feelings for our extended family are a dilute, but broader version of what we feel for close kin. We have these feelings because this group is biologically and culturally part of us in a way no other group can be.

Who will sing your songs, pray your prayers, celebrate your heroes, honor your traditions, venerate your ancestors, love the things you love? Only your family, your extended family. Only your extended family will carry your civilization forward in a meaningful way. Only the biological heirs to the people who created a civilization have ever maintained, cherished, and advanced that civilization.

It is for their extended family that men go to war. In every war Britain ever fought, whatever the government might say or think, the men who fought and died fought for their nation, their extended family.

And just as we instinctively put our children before the children of others, we should put our race and nation first. In every other context we do this without the slightest hesitation, because for any group to survive, its members must put its interests first. General Motors cannot survive if its employees think GM’s interests are no more important than those of Ford or Chrysler.

And the fundamental interest of any nation or race is survival as a people.

We have a right—an absolute right—to be us, and only we can be us.

We have a right to be left alone in our homelands, to take part in the unfolding of our national identities free of the unwanted embrace of people unlike ourselves. Every other race and nationality understands this. We are the only dupes who pretend to believe that if our country fills up with the children of others rather than our own children, it will still be our country.

In closing, I note that it is fashionable, if only in white countries, to argue that national or racial loyalty is not just outmoded but wrong, that it is the abiding bigotry of our age. Here we find the logical, lethal conclusion to which we are led if we believe all peoples are equivalent. If we really are no different from Algerians or Zulus, they, too, are part of our extended family and have equal call on the loyalties we feel for men of our own stock. If we are compelled to believe this, the most obvious steps we must take to survive as a people, the most elementary distinctions we must make all become immoral and indefensible.

If they say we are hateful because we want to survive... then it becomes obvious of who's the "bad guy"! The only weak, disgraceful, destructive thing there is, is the destruction of the organic society, through mechanical means. And the fact that parts of that society try to put it's pieces back into it's original self, perhaps enhance it, is not evil, it's noble. And the fact that the shatters that still exist, try to put themselves together into the pure glass once again, as it once was created through labour, is something honourable, not something "EVIL". Since it’s not out to benefit. Just survive and be what it always has been, to be what it's supposed to be (predisposed to), is not evil. Merely, natural. Natural by nature.

It is, instead, this campaign against racial and national loyalty that is the great bigotry of our age. It is like telling parents their children should be no more precious to them than anyone else’s children, that it is immoral to play favorites. It is as monstrous to tell a man to turn his back on the people who share his heritage, his culture, his ancestry, and his destiny as it is to tell him to turn his back on his children. This twisted imperative is a recent invention of the West, and has currency only in the West. Let us hope it dies as quickly as it has grown, for unless we are able to rekindle what our ancestors took for granted—a sense of the larger biological connectedness to nation and culture—then just as surely as demography is destiny, our destiny will be oblivion. Demographics is destiny.

As I have said before, in this time of racial peril, the highest and noblest thing any of us can do is work together to ensure the survival and flourishing of the White race, so it can give birth to new Leonardos and Newtons and Teslas.

But if we have a right to White pride, then do we not also deserve White guilt?

I think "guilt" is the wrong concept, for guilt implies responsibility, and racial guilt implies collective responsibility. A group of people acting together may be responsible for an act. But justice demands that a person who has done nothing wrong not be held responsible for a misdeed committed by another member of his race or community.

The proper concept here is "shame," not guilt, for I can feel ashamed of the misdeeds of others without being responsible for those misdeeds.

We have all felt shame at the misbehavior of other people. It is easy to understand when the culprit is a relative or friend and his actions reflect badly on us. But we also feel shame at the misbehavior of complete strangers. Yet I feel this only when their actions are "all too human," meaning that they reflect badly on me simply because, as a human being, I could have made the exact same mistake. They point out our universal human weaknesses and failings.

In the same way, I feel shame for the crimes and follies of other White people, but only if their failings are typical of Whites and thus reflect negatively on me, making me self-conscious of my own racial weaknesses and potential follies.

As for the usual charges against the White race -- racism, slavery, colonialism, environmental destruction -- I feel no shame for these at all simply as a White man, and no White person should.

Racism -- properly defined as a natural preference for and solidarity with one's own kind, not as hatred for others "just because they are different" -- is nothing to be ashamed of at all. Slavery, imperialism, colonialism, genocide, environmental destruction, and the like are all shameful things, and I wish that none of them had happened. But these crimes have been committed by members of all races whenever they have had the means and opportunity. They are all too human, and all human beings should feel ashamed of them.

The only reason these crimes are lodged against the White race in particular is that we were better at them than the others. We defended Europe from the Huns, the Moors, the Mongols, and the Turks and eventually went forth and conquered most of the globe. The other races are probably more cruel, ruthless, and cunning. But we beat them because of our superior inventiveness, superior social organization, and questing, adventurous spirit.

So when Whites are singled out for blame, we are being attacked not for our crimes, but for our virtues -- for being winners rather than losers in the brutal struggle between different races for dominion over this planet.

That struggle has not disappeared just because Whites have laid down their conquests and gone home.

It has been often remarked by observant writers, that the "origin of nearly every popular myth and legend could be traced invariably to a fact in Nature."

The Fact is -different races roam the earth, making Life a race war, whether you partake in it or not, makes little or no difference it is what it is, evolution is about divergence.

With this said, draw strength from what you are, draw strength from your ancestors.

Take pride in their achievments, be lucky for what you are and what family and rights you were born into and inherited. And there's no logical reason whatsoever as to why you should feel any guilt.

0 Opinion(s):