The Unreality of “Non-Racist” Race Realism

viewmaster2

Lately I’ve been hearing a lot of talk about “anti-racist” or “non-racist” race realism in certain circles. Basically all it strikes me as is some kind of bizarre euphemistic rationalization for someone who says and believes racist things but wants to insist they are against racism, perhaps by implying that they aren’t going to act upon their thought criminalistic beliefs or take their beliefs to their logical conclusion and advocate for racially based policies or engage in any kind of racial activism.

This kind of approach doesn’t make much sense to me.

The minute you start talking about there being racial IQ differences or pointing out differences in group behavior tendencies among different racial groups, you’ve already crossed the Rubicon into racism. When you start talking about how blacks are loud and hoot and holler in movie theaters, that *is* a racist stereotype and a racist observation, (especially if you believe there is any biological basis for these behavioral differences, but even if you do not.) Racism is a belief or set of them, which can be held even if you take no action.

So what you are really trying to say is that while you are racist on some level and hold racist viewpoints and believe some racial stereotypes are accurate, that you would not want to discriminate against anyone based on these thoughts you hold. That doesn’t mean you’re not racist, it just means you’re against discrimination. Though even this seems hard to swallow. If you believe things about a certain group, why would you refuse to apply the knowledge you’ve accumulated or the beliefs you hold to your everyday life? That just seems remarkably inefficient and counter intuitive. The answer is of course you apply this knowledge in your life. If you know a particular neighborhood is predominantly black, do you just decide to go for a stroll through it in the middle of the night without any hesitation, just as you would in a predominantly Asian or white neighborhood of an equal socioeconomic status? My guess is that you would not, or that at the very least you would consider them each on a different basis. Tailoring your activity in an area based on the racial demographics (not exclusively but among other variables,) is a form of practicing racial discrimination. It is a mild form to be sure, but it is racism. You can even attempt to claim that it isn’t discrimination because there is no “victim,” and that you are not directly discriminating against anyone, yet if there is a store or a business in an area that is not being frequented because the racial demographics in that neighborhood makes people hesitant to conduct their shopping there, then that business is losing potential customers on the basis of racial discrimination (whether justifiably or not.)

So you can make the claim that you want to use these racially based observations and beliefs positively to help these other groups or in some way utilize this knowledge to help us all live together peacefully, but in order to apply this information to society in some useful way, that would entail a racially based policy or action of some kind to put this knowledge to practice. It’s still a racialist action that is taking place. Also the very notion that other groups should adopt the values and cultural norms of European western civilization, and that you can “help” them, is itself a kind of implicit white supremacy. It’s the “White Man’s Burden,” busybody imperialism as opposed to the quiet separatist who would rather just be left alone and isn’t concerned one way or the other with how others wish to live, so long as they do it far away.

Furthermore, identifying as a “non-racist” race realist won’t win you any points or shield you from being branded a racist by 95% of people. It’s a distinction without a meaningful difference.

Imagine your boss calls you into the office one day…

“Excuse me Charlie, we’ve had a complaint that you wrote an internet article back in 2010 that says blacks have a tendency to behave rudely in restaurants…”

“Oh don’t worry about that, sir. You see I’m not racist. I’m against racism. I’m just a race realist.”

“Well whatever, I’m afraid we’re going to have to let you go. Our company cannot tolerate white supremacists. We value diversity here at Globocorp. Security will escort you out of the building.”

Of course, none of this means that if you’re “racist” you by default must embrace white nationalism, separatism, segregation, gentrification or any other proposed “solution.” It just means you’re a racist. There are many different ideological directions one can go once they reach that realization. Racial awareness isn’t a one way street toward white nationalism, (though that’s certainly not an illogical direction to go in for many people.) Nor does this mean that you have to hate every non-white person. To the contrary, being racist allows you to be friends with someone from another race and deal with them from a mutual position of honesty and acceptance if you’re both up for it. The worst people are the ones who claim to be against racism and advocate for mass immigration from places like Somalia, but then move to Portland or send their kids to majority white private schools in Vermont. They’re like the Christians who constantly harp about degeneracy while they’re hypocritically engaging in all kinds of pervy shit in their own lives.
Why is hate considered intrinsically bad anyway? Hate can be good and useful, which is why it is something we’ve evolved to be biologically capable of emoting. Love is overrated. You don’t have to hate, but so what if you do? Hate can get you out of some nasty situations in life, one way or another.

Most people are subconsciously racist to one degree or another and are not aware of it, but they act upon these beliefs constantly. The (((media))) of course loves to point this out, but pushes the narrative that you are supposed to feel guilty about noticing behavioral patterns and using your brain efficiently in learned risk/reward assessment. They want you to repent by bending over and masochistically giving away western civilization to hostile people from the third world, and they pretend this is somehow good for everyone or that it is simply white people’s turn to suffer and be enslaved. Fortunately though, many whites read those propaganda articles about “examining their whiteness” and don’t find the ethnomasochism offer all that tempting. Instead, a growing number of them opt to simply embrace their whiteness and go with their survival instincts.

A Framework For Identity

octons

So I’d love to finally ditch this brand and start a new site, but it’s tough to justify starting another site when this one already gets a substantial amount of traffic. Stark seemed to think I should keep blogging here and capitalize on the momentum.

The AltLeft seems to be attracting a new faction of people who want to be “neutral” on the issue of race. A lot of them are “left libertarian” gamergate types who are critical of third wave feminism but reject the AltRight because of racism. People like Sargon of Akkad and Shoe0nhead come to mind. They think any identity politics is bad and that people who defend white identity are just “the mirror image of SJWs ” In fact, this is becoming the dominant faction. They’re basically people who just think this social justice warrior craze has gone too far, and they want to turn the clock back to like 1995 when it was just slightly less prevalent. As I’ve stated a million times before, this will never work. Without addressing the implications of large scale demographic changes and making a point to resist such changes, you’ll never get the type of society you idealize. “Race neutrality” or “colorblindness” is itself an expression of white identity(this is one reason why SJWs always accuse people who advocate race neutrality as white supremacists.) Blacks and other groups advocate for their own unapologetically and see race everywhere. They readily exploit your altruism while you are busy being “neutral.” To try to “teach” them not to do this(or insinuate that you can teach them anything) and focus strictly on individual merits will be seen as supremacist paternalism and a denial of the uniqueness black experiences .Of course, there may be the occasional oddball Black or Mexican that rejects identity politics, but even then usually if you ask them a few probing questions you’ll find they still accept the underlying premises(“US was never a white country,” “We are a nation of immigrants,” etc.) Their identity is still there bubbling below the surface.

Not only that, when a city or a country becomes 70-80% non-white, it will most certainly not retain any “race neutrality” toward white people. Imagine being the white guy in an 80% black country who says “Guys, we’re all just one race, the human race. Here’s what I think we all should do about problem XYZ which would help everyone rather than focus on awarding reparations.”  They will basically just laugh and be like “Whitey, sit your ass down and shut up. We’re in charge now.” Only it won’t actually be you of course. It will be your children and their future that you sold out for nothing but a bit of virtue signaling. Do you want your kids to live in a city that looks like Baltimore or Detroit or the shitty parts of Oakland? Do you want them to go to a high school where they get taunted by mobs of low IQ mestizos, because the school is 95% Mexican? Have you ever felt while walking through a ghetto neighborhood late at night that you had nothing to worry about because this was a “race neutral” environment? In South Africa, whites are running for their lives. Perhaps that wouldn’t happen here, but at the very least don’t expect going to the movies to be a quiet and pleasant experience.

As the white population grows smaller and hordes of people from the third world continue to increase in both number and political clout, the prospect for race neutrality will continue to decrease even further as these groups consolidate their power to squeeze whatever advantage they can out of the system.

It would be nice to go back to the way things were in the 60’s, but it won’t happen because we don’t have the same demographics that we had in the 60’s. Perhaps we could have abandoned identity politics if we had maintained the level of homogeneity of that time period. We could probably have found away to cope with the diversity we had, assimilated to the extent that was possible, and ended up with something that looked more or less like the multiracial social cohesion depicted in Battlestar Galactica(70’s version.) Now of course it’s too late, and we’ll get Battle for the Planet of the Apes instead.

Of course, thanks to some very misguided immigration policies, the US is too diverse now to return to even 1980s racial demographics.  That doesn’t mean we have to just “suck it up” and learn to live with it though. Almost nobody in the pro-white community is still invested in the nation of “America” as it is conceptualized today. Most are already thinking in terms of post-America and the likely Balkanization of the country, a breakup along various regional and ethnic lines.  Basically whites in general have 4 options:

  1. Avoid identity politics and focus on class and other unifying issues(in other words, “beg for mercy from the new non-white majority 20 years from now and hope the country doesn’t turn our like South Africa or Brazil”
  2. Advocate for your own racial group unapologetically and see what part of the country, if any, can be salvaged for western civilization
  3.  Try to eke out a living and keep your head down. Try to interact as little as possible with invaders and instead run out the clock until you die.
  4. Flee the country to somewhere less pathologically ethnomasochistic  and less hostile to white interests(Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, Antarctica.)

My view on dealing with minorities is that you should for the most part treat people as individuals on a personal level, enjoying each of them for who they are. A nation making policy though has to look at the big picture and recognize patterns at the group level when considering broader implications of policy decisions relating to large scale demographics.