I’ve seen your recent posts on ‘taking care of your own’, and I debated whether to write you anything about it or not. Frankly, I’m shocked. Until now I truly believed that your blog was conservative, nationalist, patriotic, culturalist, but not racist. I thought you wanted people to fight Islamic encroachment and to look up to the Western liberal ideals of freedom, liberty and equality. In other words, I believed you. But now you say that there’s nothing wrong with racism, and that in fact, that’s the way to go. It’s truly disheartening. You accept that there are converts to Islam, at which point you will reject them, but you do not accept that there can be non-White converts to Western society.
If I have white and non-white neighbors, if I understand you correctly, then I should feel closely connected with my white neighbors, no matter what they think, feel or do, while feeling a ‘natural’ ‘not my type’ feeling towards my non-white neighbors, since they’re not my own?
As I’ve written on my blog in the past, if Western society cannot accept ‘converts’, it is at a terrible disadvantage. The nation-states of Europe were facing this problem without much success. In the past you’ve argued on your blog that ethnicism and nationalism were not racism. Sadly, I see you’ve now decided that it is.
I don’t see a problem with ‘taking care of your own’, but not when you define ‘your own’ based on the color of one’s skin or the place of birth of their parents or grandparents.
You claim you’re pro-Jewish, but the sad truth is that Jews have never been ‘one of your own’ in Europe and unless they assimilate and lose their cultural distinctiveness (i.e., disappear), they will never be ‘one of your own’.
It’s interesting that you wrote your post on the Jewish Tabernacle holiday, the holiday which Jews believe that in the End of Days will be the holiday where all nations will gather in Jerusalem to celebrate God together.
Those of you who actually read my post know that this person did not read my post correctly. Since his English is fluent, one has to assume that it was a failure to read closely, rather than a failure of comprehension.
Here’s what I wrote in response:
- - - - - - - - -
I think you must not have read my essay closely.
I said:I propose the positive affirmation of “racism” as a natural human instinct which must be socialized and controlled, but which is not inherently evil.
I also said:Each of these impulses can be destructive, but when humans are socialized properly, instinctual drives become subordinate to the will of the individual, and to the common good.
And so it is with racism. When completely socialized, the instinct that manifests itself in “racism” is transformed into taking care of your own.
And pay attention to my personal anecdote about my experience in the grocery store in Northern Virginia:…Then when he spoke, it turned out that — thank God! — he was an American. I wanted to embrace him and thank him for rescuing me from the slough of Multicultural despond.
But it didn’t occur to me until I was walking out of the store a few minutes later that the soldier was black.
The definition of “your own” is an elastic one, and race isn’t always the deciding factor.
At that moment I experienced this black soldier as “one of my own”. That proved to me that I wasn’t a racist — as if I didn’t already know. But I refuse to go through the humiliating contortions required by PC orthodoxy to prove my lack of racism to others. People can judge me by the body of my work. Like you, they may come to an erroneous conclusion, but I can’t help that.
The unavoidable fact is that in many racially homogeneous communities — such as small towns in Norway and Sweden — “taking care of your own” does have a racial component, because the local communities with which people feel natural solidarity are all comprised of white people.
The shameful hypocrisy of our time is that we allow non-whites the luxury of choosing to form close-knit communities of their own ethnic groups, but we deny the same right to white people, and call it “racism” if they attempt it.
You have misread what I wrote, as so many other people have. Once again, I can’t help that; I write as clearly and precisely as I possibly can, and yet I still get misconstrued. I accept that, and I also accept the fact I get called a racist for what I say.
But I will continue to assert that the preference for one’s own kind — one’s race, culture, language group, religion, or however it might be defined — is a normal, natural human instinct, and not inherently evil. Like any other instinct, it can be turned towards evil ends — the Holocaust and slavery are proof of that — but it is not evil in and of itself.
I recommend that you re-read my essay with the above in mind, and see if you reach a different conclusion.
Thanks for writing.
— Baron B.
To be blunt about it, I don’t like it when people play the Holocaust card on me. It’s the Jewish version of mau-mauing, and I refuse to be mau-maued in any form. As I said in my post, the “racism” charge only sticks if you buy into it. Yes, it’s possible to lose your job because of racial intimidation — I’m fortunate to escape that dilemma — but when you knuckle under to racial smears, you lose your soul.
My great-great grandfather owned slaves, and he and his brother fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. But my daddy was a Yankee, and hundreds of thousands of his compatriots gave their lives to free the slaves.
So I have roots on both sides, and I refuse to repudiate any of them. These things that happened, happened. Deal with it.
The only way that the “racism” bogeyman can be defeated is for thousands upon thousands of us to refuse to accept the premises behind it.
Not to defend ourselves against it.
Not to prove our detractors wrong.
Not to demonstrate that we are not racists.
But to categorically reject the unexamined premises that lie behind the accusation.
That’s what “Taking Care of Your Own” is about. It’s just one little portion of the much larger project of taking back the culture.
“Racism” is the Albigensian Heresy of our time. That is, it’s a vicious doctrinal dispute that is terribly important to the people involved, and can be deadly for anyone who happens to be caught on the wrong side of the conflict.
But in five hundred years’ time — assuming that Western Civilization survives — it will be a historical footnote, and the people of that time will be puzzled that their forebears could expend so much energy and violence over such a trivial and mostly imaginary issue.
Just wait and see.