Race Reconsidered
--by Matthew Dunnyveg
In our post-American liberal utopia, no topic generates more heat and less light than race. Since liberals believe that race doesn't exist, yet spend most of their lives in hysteria over racial oppression, shows just how bizarrely irrational this dialog has become. To bring order to this dialog, we must first define race.
Yes, race is real even if this word lacks precision; it can be used to describe something very real. Race is about where one's ancestors, or family, came from. In other words, family is about genetics. Genetics is about biology. And biology is science. Therefore, if we employ the transitive property, race is science. Any real discussion about race would be a discussion about genetics, which is science. The fact that liberals refuse to recognize such basic truths is part of their war on reality. When you're a liberal, reality is never your friend.
Consequently, race problems in this country are actually problems of ethnicity. Ethnicity is defined as the socio-political expression of a particular people and their culture. This is just as true of the group we call blacks as it is any other group. When I was in the USN, there was just as big a cleavage between African-Americans and the newer immigrant blacks as there was between African-Americans and whites. The same is true of "Hispanics", which is an artificial designation created by liberals to satisfy their bureaucracy fetish. The reality is that Mexicans don't like Puerto Ricans who don't like Cubans who don't like Guatemalans who don't like Colombians, etc. This is despite the fact that most Hispanics have at least some aboriginal heritage, which makes them as genetically similar to each other as white groups are to each other; their ancestors all came from the same place (Asia).
The bottom line is that we identify with those sharing values similar to our own, and <i>not</i> our genetics. Most people couldn't distinguish between an allele and a haplotype at gunpoint. But even the semi-sentient can tell when others have a very different worldview from their own.
This liberal schizophrenia is reflected in our politics. It all began when Democrats alienated their traditional base of white Protestant Southerners and northern Catholic white ethnics with unacceptably liberal policies. Put in the words of George McGovern, "I opened the doors to the Democratic Party and twenty million voters walked out". So, rather than adopt policy positions acceptable to Americans or go out of business, liberals instead decided to put America out of business by electing a new people and otherwise revaluing all values, if I may use Nietzschean language.
Since Americans object to having our society turned upside down, or our country put out of business to save the Democrat party, we have reacted in several different ways. The first way is something called white nationalism. White nationalism is properly defined as believing that we ultimately identify by race rather than ethnicity. What is most telling is this is the movement liberals hate most when the reality is that white nationalism is merely the latest manifestation of liberalism. One of liberalism's most cherished conceits is that it is about a universal brotherhood of man--the "fraternite" in the old French revolutionary liberal slogan "liberte, egalite, fraternite". What white nationalism has done is to replace this brotherhood of man mythology with a brotherhood of whites. Of course, as with other liberal groups, white nationalists must deny the validity of culture and human nature--two hallmarks of leftist thinking.
In case anybody thinks I am overstating the case, here is none other than Richard Spencer in his own words in an interview with NPR:
<blockquote>SPENCER: What I would ultimately want is this ideal of a safe space effectively for Europeans. This is a big empire that would accept all Europeans. It would be a place for Germans. It would be a place for Slavs. It would be a place for Celts. It would be a place for white Americans and so on.
For something like that to happen and really for Europeans to survive and thrive in this very difficult century that we're going to be experiencing, we have to have a sense of consciousness. We're going to have to have that sense of identity.</blockquote>
Only the leftist would claim that things like identity and culture have to be manufactured out of whole cloth. Only the leftist would ignore the history that tells us that no matter how many nonwhites whites may have killed, whites have killed more whites by several orders of magnitude. White Nationalists also have to ignore the Ellis Island wave of immigration that was almost completely white. Americans so objected to continued immigration by these foreign whites that we formed the Second Klan to shut our borders. It is also the case that the long-term survival of the imperialist EU is in doubt; it is inherently unstable politically. Only the most hardcore leftist would think these problems can be wished away, or that human nature can be sufficiently changed to allow for states based on race or imperial force rather than culture.
Most of us are ethnonationalists. Being an ethnonationalist hardly means rejecting what science has to tell us about racial differences; I sure don't. Since we have to live with the consequences of our actions, the operant question becomes what these racial differences mean. For our purposes, suffice it to say that <i>all</i> groups, and not just whites, identify with their culture and other individuals who similarly identify with that culture. This is the real meaning of "nation". A nation is a people sharing a common socio-political identity and values.
The problem with liberal irrationality is that it conflates the racial biological science with the social science of ethnicity. When liberals call us silly names like "racist", are they objecting to theories concerning those haplotypes and alleles? Or are they really telling us we don't have the right to criticize black and brown cultures, which goes ill with our own? Aren't liberals telling us to shut up when they call criticizing Hispanic culture for its litter bug ways, or considering drunk driving to be a macho activity? Is this about Mexican culture or their biology?
What it all boils down to is whether Americans and other Western groups are willing to cede our right to offer the same criticisms of nonwhite cultures as we do of other Western groups. In other words, it's all about whether we're going to keep our free speech rights by conserving our ethnic identity that places a premium upon individual rights.
