I've seen a number of 'Why We Write' posts throughout the blogosphere in the last week, and it occurs to me that it is at least as important, in my case at least, to discuss the objectives that I do not have in writing.
Primarily it is my goal to never convince a reader to do something that is contrary to their own best interests, and especially never to convince said reader for reasons of cosmic justice or a moral crusade. I will lay out in as clear and complete a fashion as I am able what I believe your interests are for your present, future, and extended selves, but ultimately you decide your interests, not me. This is how it should be, I consider anything else to be rather insulting to a fellow child of God.
For example, I will not attempt to convince a Hispanic person that his group should not seek to seize demographic hegemony over the United States. Obviously I don't want him and his to take it from me and mine, and I am willing to contest it rather vigorously since I consider the issue existential, but to attempt to bamboozle him into believing something that is manifestly not true (i.e., that for he and his, possessing such hegemony is not desirable) is a deed I want no part of.
Said individual is naturally my opponent, but he isn't really an enemy in the way a disingenuous white liberal is.
Now for Americans of black, Jewish, or Asian extraction, I will argue that your best interests are served by the demographic hegemony of me and mine. I argue this based on two points:
1. Your group ascending to such hegemony is a non-starter, so you're pretty much destined to always be 'living in the tents' of another group in the US. If you don't like that there are places where you and yours can enjoy the control over your collective destiny that demographic hegemony gives. I say this in perfect sympathy with the various separatist groups who would prefer to rule themselves horridly than have some other group rule them marginally tolerably.
2. I challenge you to find another group in the world that treats groups similar to yours as well as me and mine have. And, of course, there's not an open audition here, the second group that is challenging has already been determined. If we're being honest with ourselves, we know which side your bread is buttered on. You'd be wise to call for the ejection of any and all illegal immigrants, initiate Operation Wetback II, and retroactively revoke birthright citizenship for anyone not born of a citizen, especially in cases where they possess another nation's citizenship (as in the case of Mexico, which considers anyone born to a Mexican parent to be a Mexican citizen).
The “Why was Trump allowed to win?” mystery
1 week ago
20 comments:
As one of those non-whites, appeasement of fellows like yourself simply means that you will eat us last. Paraphrasing Donald Rumsfeld.
Anonymous,
Have fellows like myself eaten you anywhere, in any country, at any time? I seriously doubt it. If you're Hispanic, I expect you to be my opponent, and that is fine. If you're Black, consider what happens when/if another group takes the hegemony. You won't like it.
Let's put it this way. People like you are against me and mine. What incentive do I have to be on your side if you are against me? I will stay on the side of the establishment rather be on the side of the Hunter Wallace's of the world. I am not Black or Hispanic or Jewish. I expect a White racist to be a racist but the victimology is rather absurd.
Anonymous
Your incentive is this. There are only in the final analysis two sides in this conflict. My side is generally inclined to be less onerous to you and yours than is the other side. The status quo establishment has a relatively short shelf life when you're looking on the time horizon of children and grandchildren.
How about this reaction then? I don't ally myself with Nazis, traitors, and terrorists who want to do bad things to me and mine. I will take my chances with the other side. They have to better than you. You really are a sociopath. Not Aspergery, really sociopathic. I know the difference. I will oppose people who seek to harm me and mine. You and yours would seek to deport all non-whites from the U.S. or barring that would break up the Union itself. That is nothing other than treason. Go to hell.
Anonymous
If that is how you feel, you should not ally yourself with me. You are incorrect about your claim that I seek to harm you and yours. You are partially correct that I seek to deport all non-whites from the US---I see to deport all illegals from the US and retroactively return to the understanding of US citizenship that prevailed for most of our history. That constitutes a reasonable fraction of the non-whites in the US I concede.
What I want is totally non-controversial when expressed by pretty much everyone but Whites, and would hardly even be worth mentioning in the US prior to 1960 or so. Your moral posturing is rather tiresome, considering that it isn't based on any actual moral principle that you are willing to see enforced universally.
Universal moral principle? From a racist? The mind boggles. Is that a joke?
The way you, and in fairness, most, use racist is about as useful in non-theological conversation as the way we Christians use the term sinner (hint, it always applies if you're talking about human beings). Racist has a functional definition of simply failing to be anti-white. Since I am not anti-white, I recognize it as simply a club with which you attempt to pathologize me and those like me who have similar feelings towards our own to pretty much every other ethnic or racial group.
I do not make my arguments out of any universal moral principle. My point is that YOU and those like you do not either. Instead you simply pay lip service to principles that you don't actually believe as a means to advance your status. That is what I find tiresome and contemptible.
Hey, you are a racist. When you demand universal principles at the same time that you say only whites or rather only your kind of whites get a say, it is hypocritical. As for anti-white, you mistake anti-you or anti-like you for anti-white.
Silly rabbit, I don't demand universal moral principles. I simply demand you acknowledge that you have no such principles. When you say you oppose me because you perceive that what I want is bad for you and yours, you might at least be honest, if perhaps mistaken, as I have no particularly onerous fate envisioned for you and yours. On that matter, men of good will can negotiate. However when you attempt to yoke some moral principle to your self-interest, I get rather annoyed. Now, as to whether I'm a racist, for a sufficiently loose definition to encompass me, you also wind up encompassing the overwhelming majority of the world's population, both past and present. Because the definition you use is so loose, it loses any moral suasion in my view. I don't take any particular offense at this from you, any more than I would if you were to proclaim me a 'witch' or a 'heretic'.
So basically, Anonymous, he has no interest in what you do or how you fare, either in short or long term. He's simply stating that historically speaking, blacks, Jews, and Asians have been treated far better in the past hundred years or so in the US under a predominantly Caucasian hegemony, as opposed to pretty much any other group throughout history. As to the deportation, if you are not a US Citizen, or you do not have paperwork stating that you are authorized to be in this country legally, then you need to be deported. If you have obtained your citizenship illegally (illegal immigrant has a child in this country, therefore making the child a citizen and protecting the parent from deportation), your citizenship needs to be revoked, and you need to be deported to the country your parents claim citizenship in. I am inclined to agree on all counts.
I find it to be rather disturbing that in the middle of an intelligent conversation someone would find it necessary to call the other a racist, when no racism was spoken. It's not that I'm surprised... Hell, in the past three years I've heard about more people being called racist than in my entire life. Simply put, calling someone a racist because you can't deal with the truth they're laying out for you is a bitch move. Since you did so in an open forum such as this, the world may not know your name, but they know you're a bitch that is too weak to simply state, "While I understand your point of view with regard to this issue, I'm going to have to disagree."
I call them as I see them. It is you who are too weak and bitchy to actually call a spade a spade. You are a racist and I will oppose you. As for universal interests, that is an argument that you have used, not I. You will fail and your cause will be for nothing.
Anonymous
Calling someone a racist is an implicit appeal to universal moral principles, and an appeal that neither you nor an overwhelming majority of the population has standing to make.
A racist is still a racist. You want to discriminate in favor of your own set of white people against everyone else and have the gall to say that non-whites should ally with you anyway? The description fits you to a T. So America is only for white people, not for anyone else and you are offended when I call you what you are? You are weak. At least the Stormfronters say yes we are, so what?
Anonymous
I have news for you. Every other race is going to discriminate against you in a considerably more hardcore fashion that I would be inclined to. Are you Asian? Do the pograms against Chinese in places where they are a market-dominant minority ring a bell? I don't ask you to trust me, simply to look at the track record of people like myself--my position would be a pretty ordinary one in the US of the 1950s or early 60s or before.
As to calling me a racist, I believe that pretty much everyone is a racist, including yourself. That is why I'm offended by you---you are attempting to criticize others for not meeting a standard that you and your allies also fail to meet.
Excuses, excuses. Very weak.
Anonymous
You appear to be under the impression that any group is actually on your side. It'd be better for you if you lost this impression. Sure, lots of groups will advance noble-seeming rhetoric claiming to be on your side. But in the final analysis, they're not. The SWPL/DWL crowd will sell you out as soon as reality penetrates their thick skulls. Most other groups won't even wait that long. The only question is which group is least inclined against your interests. For me, as a white father of white children, the whites are the group least inclined against my interests. My claim is that for most other groups in the US, whites are the group least inclined against your interests as well. If you choose not to believe me, that's fine, but you can not in the future claim that nobody explained what your vital interests actually were.
Jehu
I take it you are skeptical that we can move beyond identity politics?
I'd rather have a healthier integration to the point we can forget about race at least to a point. Its true that races are not all biologically the same. However on a person to person basis race doesn't (and ideally shouldn't) matter.
That is not to say I don't support limiting immigration a great deal more.
Yes, I'm extremely skeptical on that point (that we can move beyond identity politics). This is especially so if enforcement against practicing identity politics is only meaningfully practiced against one side (i.e., only against white people). Maybe 5% of whites and less than 1% of everyone else could genuinely 'get past race', were they isolated from everyone else, but that's no way to build a working society.
We have to deal with humanity as it is, not how we would like it to be. Even religions with divine assistance have a dismal track record in changing the nature of man---the best they can manage is to bend the nature of a few men and transform even fewer still.
Post a Comment