Blog Archive

Saturday, September 20, 2008

What is 'White Supremacism' ? Why is it bad?

Typically, whenever anyone advocates any policy that remotely favors whites, he will be assailed with the usual cacophony of 'racist,' 'white supremacist,' 'hater,' 'neo-nazi,' etc. Many people insist they are not white supremacists, not racists, not haters, they just want 'x.' As the argument goes, "x" isn't racist, it's just common sense. Or "X" isn't hateful, it's just benevolent towards our own. Or "X" isn't white supremacy, it's just nationalism, separatism, realism, etc, etc.

Various groups are giving strange dichotomies like 'it's okay to be proud of your race, so long as you aren't a white supremacist.' 'it's okay to oppose immigration, so long as you aren't a white supremacist.' Etc. Most of the right wing groups, in a desperate wish for respectability, play by the liberals' rules and truckle under their demands. We'll be 'only so far to the right and no further.' And in order to prove their true PC credentials, they will sharply vilify and attack anyone to the right of them, to show the leftie liberals that they're really good people, that they're basically on the same side, and they hate the evil white supremacist nazis too. This moral cowardice infects even the 'hardest core' which turns out to be quite spinelessly soft in the end.

Let's call a spade a spade. There are two definitions of white supremacy that make any sense, the objective and the subjective. I'll explain each of them, and if you don't fall under either category, if you are not a white supremacist in either sense, you should have no interest in being anything else either. Instead of disavowing white supremacism while clinging to white separatist, white nationalist, survivalist, etc, you should just give it up and go back to being a good communist left-winger. Nothing is more pathetic than people who refuse to maintain a principled and orderly moral system but contort themselves into loops and pretzels of contradictory views. Basically, you're just a chink in our moral armor, a weak point liberals can chisel away at, dividing us amongst ourselves, causing friction and ultimately dissension and surrender in the ranks. Once you've admitted it's immoral to be a white supremacist, everything else is immoral too, and it's time to file for extinction. That's the only other path that lays before us. People must choose.

Definition 1, the Objective White Supremacism: The belief that whites are objectively superior beings, that by any fair measure, they come out 'supreme.' That whites are the best. That we are the best race and have the credentials to prove it.

Is this true or false? First of course we must decide on what objective measures we will be using, to decide if we are superior or inferior. Let's look at some simple ones then. Standard of Living. Whites have the highest standard of living in the world, we are indeed supreme at affording ourselves the very best lifestyle. Roll out a map of the world, color it in with 'wealth, freedom, longevity, lack of corruption' or any other objective measure, and white countries will come out the highest. Perhaps a few asian countries like taiwan, south korea, singapore, japan will join in, but the map of the world will be colored distinctly 'white good, non-white bad.'

Human Accomplishment is another objective measure we could use. Let's go back through history and color the map of the world based on who did what. Again, you'll get a few scattered good things in japan, china, or wherever---and then a massive, dense, overwhelming scatterplot of white countries accomplishing virtually everything. Art, music, literature, math, science, technology, whatever you want, you will find it absolutely dominated by whites. Again, whites are supreme in their ability to accomplish, they take the cake by far. Read Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment if there's any further doubt of this objective fact. 'white good, non-white bad.'

It is a fact that even non-whites prefer the looks of white women. Every other race attempts to lighten their skin complexion so they can look more like the human ideal, whites, even with dangerous toxins and bleaches that leave them looking ridiculous. Not just now, but across all time, not just blacks, but asians too. India has an entire caste system based around varna, or color, where the lighter skinned castes are respected more than the darker. The same is true in china, where parasols were used to keep the skin from tanning and skin lighteners used to chemically alter their basic skin color. We did not introduce that, they chose it on their own thousands of years ago. The objective superiority of our white women draws the lust of all the non-whites and makes them the constant victim of rape. White on non-white rape, however, is virtually non-existent. Why would a white want them? The difference is so vast, that while blacks rape 37,000 white women in America a year, not a single white on black rape occurred. Every single attempt the media has made to find a white on black rape has been discovered to be a hoax. The beauty of white women is supreme. Modeling magazines continuously find that white women sell, non-white women don't, even in the non-white world. Commercials, billboards, and marriage online dating services, all feature lighter-skinned women even within their own race than their average skin tone. Young black children prefer playing with white dolls over black dolls, because they look better. White children, of course, are instinctively averse to non-white dolls, and when they grow up, refuse to miscegenate on the whole, at a vastly higher rate than non-whites who would love nothing better than to find a white woman. 'white good, non-white bad.'

What about our physical, martial, and athletic prowess? Again, whites are supreme. The vast majority of the Summer and Winter Olympic Medalists are white, even though we are only 8% of the world population. This is just a hands down victory for the physical superiority of whites. Include any other sports, as many extra sports as you please, we would still come out on top. Whether it's our teamwork, intelligence, strength, tenacity, or skill, somehow whites come out on top objectively, beyond all debate, so that's that. What about war? On the battlefield, whites are again utterly dominant. Whites have rarely lost a war to non-whites, not in the long run, and we have with ridiculously small numbers routed non-white armies over and over again. The boxer rebellion, for instance, was put down handily by a handful of whites (and japanese). The mongols conquered china easily but lost to the not even united Europe (and to japan.) India was conquered by a handful of british troops against giant Indian armies. The same is true in africa, and the conquistadores against the Incas and Aztecs accomplished similar marvels. The exchange rate between the USA and Japan, almost 10 to 1, showed again white superiority over even the best of the non-whites. And while the Roman Empire and the Greeks defeated Persia over and over again and took over much of the middle east, no Persians, Arabs, or middle easterners ever conquered Europe. The Ottomans gave the best shot and even they couldn't beat a dis-united Europe with various countries all still squabbling among themselves. Europe paid so little attention to these non-white aggressors that they still spent all their time fighting each other---and STILL won. If one could ever imagine a 'white army' fighting as one against the non-white world, can anyone imagine anything but a smashing victory? Remember a few white texans took out the vastly larger mexican army, and the US-Mexico war was another easy victory for whites, that the boers at blood river defeated endless hordes of spear-chuckers, and that the US (or even the early settlers and pilgrims) traditionally defeated amerindians no matter what the odds over and over in our expansion westward. When it comes to the most basic measure of fitness, war and violent conflict, whites are supreme. It's undebatable. We win, they lose, we are the best warriors of all time. 'white good, non-white bad.'

So what is the use of not calling a spade a spade? The supreme race, the race that comes out on top in any competition, any measure of human fitness, any quality we respect, is the white race. We are the wealthiest, strongest, most accomplished, most beautiful race on earth. Objectively. Undeniably. Therefore anyone who even looks at the facts, anyone white or not, must through sheer logic and rationality, be a white supremacist. Whites are supreme, and therefore, anyone who acknowledges this fact, must be a white supremacist, by simple definition. Anyone who validates reality or cares about the truth, is a white supremacist, whether white or not, they must admit the superiority of the white race, as a whole, over any other. It is so impossible not to be a white supremacist, that only burying your head in the sand and intentionally looking for any little flaw in whites while exaggerating every good in non-whites, can remotely make the competition even. Only self-hating liberals are not white supremacists, there's only two choices. To say that whites are the best in every field, but aren't the supreme race, is just semantics. It's moral cowardice.

Definition Two, Subjective White Supremacism: The belief that whites, regardless of merit or cause, hold your supreme, over-arching loyalty. That the white race has a supreme place in your heart. That it trumps the other races, for you, simply because you choose for it to. Subjective White Supremacism would not be fazed by meeting aliens from outer space who are better in every way than us. Even so, we would proclaim, my duty, love, and loyalty are to my people, not yours, and I will live and die for them, not you. Rather than mercenary bean counting, rather than switching your loyalty to whoever meets some arcane criteria in your head, a simple, straightforward subjective white supremacy needs no rationale, no arguments, no proof at all. It just needs a willing heart.

Subjective white supremacy is the counterpart to subjective racial solidarity among any other group. Saying your supreme interest, your supreme value, is the white race, is no different than Michelle Obama dedicating herself to the black race and its interests and valuing it above all others. It is no different from any other group forming an 'asian blah blah' or 'jewish blah blah' or 'black blah blah' or 'hispanic blah blah.' It's an intentional effort to hold the interests of your group above all others, or loyalty to the in-group above the common or universal, of the supreme claim your race has on you. A white supremacist must simply care more about whites than any other, and he has quite clearly defined them as subjectively supreme, to him--after all it overarches all other races, and that is the definition of supreme. There is no escaping white supremacy then, if you care more about whites than other races, you are a white supremacist--they are supreme in your heart. They take the supreme place. They are on top.

Subjective white supremacy can only be held by very confused non-whites, unlike objective white supremacy which should be held by any honest person on earth. Subjective white supremacy is the natural and instinctual and healthy and normal state of whites, the counterpart to every other group preferring their own and caring about their own. Whites who don't love whites or care about how whites are doing all around the world, are race traitors, unnatural, they are like lepers and it hurts to even be around them, they are so offensive to our instinctual grasp of right and wrong. Whites cheering for blacks against whites in a sport, a war, a nobel prize award, a courtship, are all despicable and immediately yield the question: 'what is wrong with that person? Doesn't he know his own? Doesn't he love himself? Why would he do such a perverted thing?' If you don't wish to see white interests secured first and foremost, above anyone else's, if you don't choose for the white to be happy or safe or free, if a choice must be made, then you're not a white supremacist. Congratulations, you've completely denatured and castrated your moral sense, you can now join the ash heap of history with your non-evolutionarily successful views. For anyone who doesn't hold whites supreme, will immediately lose to anyone who holds non-whites supreme, and while you go on compromising and giving away your interests, they will cling to all of theirs. While whites are cheering (I'm not even kidding, they cheered Bill Clinton in his speech in Portland announcing this fact) their coming minority status in the USA, hispanics are cheering their coming majority status in the USA. Both people can't be right. If it's good to be a minority and dispossessed of your own land, then hispanics should be mourning their coming, woeful, hateful majority status. Somehow they don't buy it though, somehow they don't agree with whites in thinking majoritydom is all that hateful and bad, somehow they are quite happy with this result. Either one or the other strategy is correct. I believe in the one that will live. I believe in the one that grows. I believe in the one that lasts.

Does white supremacism make any distinction between wishing whites well defensively versus aggressively? No, it does not. Objectively speaking, wanting the survival of the fittest, 'may the best man win,' would of course imply wishing to see whites spread and grow and flourish, as the truest inheritors of perfection, there would be no desire to see it stay at 8% of the world's population, while failed, imperfect, shoddy hominids of other sorts were 92%. It would be seen as a horrible travesty, if whites stayed on earth perfectly defensively, keeping all their current land, while non-whites went off to colonize the universe. It would be a moral failure to not afford the best people the best chance at life. To not reward greatness with material goods, to somehow grovel and inch along on the edges and dregs of existence while placating our lessers and inferiors with all the fruits and pleasures of life. If we are better, we deserve better, and should get better, than our inferiors. This same logic extends not just between the races, but between species. Superior species deserve better and more than inferior ones, like bugs, rodents, bacteria, and cockroaches. Just as humans deserve the lion's share of resources and happiness and rights over non-humans, and bugs and germs deserve the least and worst spot in life, just as human interests trump non-human interests, the objectively superior white race deserves the lion's share of the world, and the dregs should go to the dregs. If we were superior, but deserved nothing more, then what would being superior mean? What would it all be for? Are we seriously supposed to divide the world equally between apes and man? Between mud huts and skyscrapers? Between criminals and citizens? Superior always implies valuing them more, it cannot mean anything else, and those who are of higher value, deserve more than those of lesser value.

I submit to you that the greatest thing that ever happened in world history, was the colonization of much of the world by the superior white race. The conquest and colonization of North and South America, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand was the high point of world history. It was the flowering of the greatest race receiving its just reward, the greatest share of world population. It was matching our excellence to our rewards, our achievements to our population, our supremacy to our property. I submit to you that it was moral and good to wipe out the scattered tribes of stone age barbarians all around the world and replace them with hundreds of millions of beautiful, brilliant white families. I submit to you that it would be a good thing to do it now, today, again. That the world doesn't belong to anyone in particular, that it is up for grabs between all lifeforms, that the best prevail in seizing it, that this de facto makes them the best, and the best deserve nothing short of the colonization of the world. I submit to you that homo sapiens did just this in their wiping out of neanderthals and homo habilus and all the other junk species long ago, and that it was moral for them to do so, because they were better and deserved better than their inferiors. I submit to you that we should take it all back, return to our just spot in the world, not as 8% of the population, but 40% like in 1900, and that we of all people deserve the stars. We should never allow the universe to slip away from us, we should never give away the future as someone else's property, we should be first and foremost in everything, we should rule. Just as humans dominate the inanimate, animal, and plant kingdoms, the best are the natural rulers of the world, and naturally who we wish to see survive AND grow, AND flourish, AND prosper. It is ridiculous to hold we are the best, but that therefore we only deserve 8% of the world, or that we can only defend our slowly dwindling land masses in some rear guard action. If we are the best, we deserve the best, and that's that.

And that chain of logic, of course, is why people are so opposed to white supremacism. Because in its implications, in its logical results, in its chain of reasoning, once you say whites are supreme either objectively or subjectively, you must also say they deserve the supreme share, the supreme good, the supreme victory, the supreme triumph over all others. You must immediately, logically, follow up by saying they should be supreme. But, does it help to shrink away from logic and reason? If it is logical and reasonable to be a white supremacist, if any honest person would be so no matter how they fight it, and if it is logical and reasonable that the superior should triumph and rule over the inferior, that the superior should succeed and the inferior fail, the superior grow and the inferior shrink, that the superior should replace the inferior and not the inferior the superior---then what choice does an honest person have?

What choice an honest thinker but go the whole way? What choice a moral person than to cheer for the most 'immoral' deeds? What choice but to rethink everything we were ever taught and start revering the true heroes of history? The colonists, the imperialists, the racists, everyone who helped not white 'survival', which was never their interest and would've sounded like a joke to them, the strongest people on earth, but white power, white rule, white imperium, white fecundity, white wealth, white victory. Was it not heroes who defeated the incas and aztecs? Heroes who drove out the mongols from Russia, the turks from Europe, the maoris from new zealand, the zulus from south africa, the apaches from the West, the muslims from sicily and spain, on and on? Were not our greatest presidents also generals who fought the Indians so that the white race might spread and prevail and grow and rule? Weren't Hong Kong and Macao good things? Wasn't Perry opening up trade with Japan a good thing? Isn't Canada and Argentina better than what came before? Aren't we glad France turned back the non-white tide at Tours? How is there any difference, the essence remains the same, defensive or offensive, what we celebrate, what we enjoy, is whites winning. Whites maintaining their power and success in the world. There can be no morality that artificially, arbitrarily draws a line and says 'white rule is moral here but immoral there.' 'a white population is good on this square acre but bad on that one.' It is meaningless. If it's good, it's good. It's good anywhere, everywhere. If it's better than anything else, it's best, it should be striven for, it's a good outcome when it happens. Though arguments can be made that objectively, non-whites are superior in some fields and thus should be, by dint of merit, given the just rewards of their supremacy, it would of course fall short of 92% of the world. It would fall short of 50% of the world. Whatever the fair debatable figure is, it is not today's figure, and thus doesn't matter. Another argument could be that like zoos or the endangered species act, even completely inferior beings should be allowed some representation on earth as simply a curiosity or exotic diversity, but such reservations would be small and essentially meaningless--it would not change the moral calculus. As far as today goes, all that can be said is whites deserve far, far better than any rear guard, or defense, or holding action, could give. For the people who created virtually everything good on earth, who created the technology and culture that allows for the carrying capacity of 7.6 billion people in the first place, to be the ever dwindling minority of the enjoyers of their own creation, is a grave injustice. A cosmic injustice. Whites must benefit from white achievement proportional to their achievement, non-whites should not be allowed to be the prime beneficiaries, the evolutionary victors, for things they never even did. For things they never were and never will be. Whites deserve better, they invented the very way of life the rest of the world is living, they afforded it with their miraculous systems and devices, and now they are to be dispossessed of it all--the very wealth and happiness they created, that non-whites had no hand in making, but consume voraciously. Preposterous. We morally can take back the entirety of our contribution, which is debatable, but well over 50%, of all the world's goods. 8% is a joke, our coming 1% is a sin.

To sum up, white supremacism is holding that whites are either objectively superior, or subjectively superior in your love for them, just like a 'family supremacist' who cares more about his children than someone else's children. Both are natural and logical, neither can be denied by any sensible white, the facts support the first case, emotions and human nature supports the second. Only pretzel people can avoid being white supremacists, and they are nothing but jokes and lepers to those of us who remain. White supremacy being true and right, it only follows that white supremacy in the material world, in resource allocation, in well-being, in power, in population, should also be good and right. If we are better, we deserve better. If we are the best, we deserve the best. White supremacy therefore advocates whites, in fact, be supreme. Starting from the initial cause that we are the happiest, brightest, fittest, most beautiful, most accomplished, best exemplars of the human race and indeed all life, we deserve nothing less than the best results, the best situation, the best position, the supreme height of the food chain, the pecking order, the totem pole. Winners should win. Anything less is a crime against nature. Any less support by a white for whites, is an act of race treason. By either definition, whites must support their own, all the way to the hilt, and though the environment means we can't enact such a morality, we can at least celebrate the time it did---The Age of Exploration, the Enlightenment, the whitening of the world that lasted until WWI, was indeed our finest hour. This pathetic groveling and decay, our darkest. With that in mind, we can keep the flame alive--for the age of salvation and rebirth.


Tanstaafl said...

Well reasoned, well written.

Armor said...

The demographic growth of the third world means that the Whites will represent an ever smaller percentage of the world population. But it doesn't bother me. If the African population living in Africa grows to 2 billion, they will only hurt themselves. The urgent thing is to reverse the population replacement in the western world. We need to demonstrate our political superiority over the crazy left. Once we have achieved that, we no longer need to worry over our dwindling numbers, and we do not need to invade the rest of the world. In any case, it is absurd to argue that we need to take a larger part of the world for ourselves, at a time when we are actually resisting genocide (and not succeeding).

Diamed said...

I think establishing the moral correctness of the founding of America, Australia, Canada, and South Africa is a way to prevent the genocide of those populations and stop the claims that we don't 'belong' there.

It also frees us from white guilt that can be used even against Europe to genocide people there for being colonialists and imperialists. Far more important than conquering the world is getting rid of the arguments which create the justification for genocide against whites.

Plus I don't know that restoring demographic majority numbers implies attacking other people, it could just be creating insular economies that only deal with each other and stop giving charity or trade to our competitors, stop teaching them our technology and culture and thus getting rid of all our advantages over them, stop curing their diseases, etc. Stop selling them food, and use all of it to feed new white babies, and I bet you the demographic balance would shift marvelously. Whites produce almost all the food on earth after all.

Don't worry I don't think we really disagree here.

luke said...

1. Persians, Arabs and other Middle Eastern Caucasoids are white too, and they have been taken down by Mongols and Turkics in most battles. Many European peoples like the Russians were also defeated and colonized by Mongoloid groups like them and the original Huns.

2. European military dominance only began in with the Industrial Revolution and the technological revolutions that came with it which put it ahead of the rest of the world at the time. It has since died out around the 1930s due to Whites Westerners sharing their technology with everyone else. Pre-Industrial Europeans actually didn't have that great of a track record when it came to warfare against non-Caucasians and Middle Easterners.

3. Whites do not dominate most sports. Blacks dominate American Football, BasketBall, Boxing, Sprinting, Endurance-running and Body-Building (and are over-represented in World Football). And Mongoloids are over-represented in Gymnastics and swimming.

4. The studies about White dolls and Black children are debunked Politically Correct propaganda based on fake evidence:

Diamed said...

My definition of white is people of European descent. Obama agreed with me and decided people of Middle East or North African descent should be given their own separate classification. There's obviously a major cultural and genetic divide between the two groups.

The Spaniards beat the Incas outnumbered a gajillion to one with only slightly better technology. The British beat the Indians at the battle of Plessy outnumbered and outgunned. The USA beat the Japanese in World War II with a 10-1 casualty ratio. The Boers at the battle of blood river won despite being outnumbered and surrounded by the Zulus. The mongols eventually were defeated by Germany and later by Russia. The Roman Empire ruled more non-European territory in 117 A.D. than non-Europeans ruled European territory at any time -- so even before gunpowder we were the likely victors in war.

Whites are the vast majority of Olympic medalists. This is easily verifiable.

Black men are more attracted to white women than black women, as demonstrated through their own e-dating preferences. Whether the doll test in particular was false changes nothing.