Was the founding generation of America full of white nationalists? This is a claim popular with some white nationalists. They argue that North America was settled by white people who set out to create a new society for white people and once they achieved independence from England, they created a white society. They will point to statements and actions that suggest that early Americans consciously and deliberately planned a society exclusively for white people.
Oddly, this is the exact same claim made by anti-whites in support of the demands for reparations and what they call “restorative justice.” The starting point for understanding the anti-white argument is their take on the social contract. They claim that because civilization was created by white men, it must have been created to serve the interest of white men, which must have come at the expense of non-whites. In other words, they agree with the white nationalists on this point.
Putting aside the claims by the anti-whites, which are all ex post facto arguments to support their current thirst for vengeance, are the white nationalist correct when they claim the Framers as their own? There is no disputing the fact that the European people of the 17th and 18th century had little interest in other races. They certainly did not think the races should mingle. They thought it perfectly normal to own human beings, so their views on equality were, at best, narrow and rhetorical.
The best argument in favor of the white nationalist claim about the intention of the Framers is the preamble to the constitution. “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
The word “posterity” is critical. Then as now, this word means future generations of the current people and the people who chose that word were white. They chose to capitalize it, which in that age was a form of emphasis. They were making clear to the people of the states that the point of the new government was to protect and promote the people and their descendants. The Naturalization Act of 1790, one of the first acts passed by the new government, drives home this point.
The problem here is that Congress repealed this five years later in favor of the Naturalization Act of 1795. They kept much of the original bill, but then three years later they modified it again with the Naturalization Act of 1798. More changes followed as Congress wrestled with how best to solve the main problem, which was the lack of human capital to exploit the country’s natural resources. 18th century America was rich in natural resources, but short of people.
In other words, the point of these acts was not to protect white people or keep out non-whites, but to manage the problem of how to bring in new settlers – and that is what was needed – but to do so without undermining the current population. Race and ethnicity were not the primary reason for these acts. In fact, the people of this age could not image what we think of as a multi-racial society. Such a thing not only did not exist, but at the time it could not exist. It was simply not a consideration.
That brings us to the main problem with this line of reasoning. The people of this time had different conceptions of race. This is not to say race is a social construct, but that the meaning of words change over time. For 18th century man, words like “white”, and “race” were used differently from today. For the Framers, white often meant English, while race meant ethnicity. Our modern idea of “white”, meaning broadly European, would have seemed strange to Thomas Jefferson.
Further, the concept of white nationalism would have puzzled the people of this age because it is a solution to a problem they could not imagine. If you went back in time and told them that millions of non-whites would be flowing into the country every year, they would have thought you were insane. The movement of millions of people, regardless of race, was inconceivable. There were only four million people in America when the Constitution was being debated.
Now, the white nationalist would no doubt argue that if the Framers could understand the problems that modern Americans face, they would certainly embrace the concept of white nationalism as a solution. There is no way to prove or disprove it, so it is merely a gratuitous assertion. It is fair to assume that the Framers assumed and expected, therefore would have wanted, the country to look like them in terms of race and religion, long after they were gone. They wanted this for their posterity.
There is a deeper issue at work here. Like the anti-whites who claim original sin as justification for their present behavior, the white nationalists pointing to the Framers are looking for a moral authority. They think that the Framers are unassailable, in moral terms, so if the Framers were white nationalists, then it follows that white nationalism is a moral good. What are you going to do? Take down the statues of the Framers and strike their names from the history books?
That aside, the mistake is to assume a person can be a moral authority. The Framers were not gods or God’s representatives. They were just men sorting through the challenges of their age with the knowledge of their age. They were not moral authorities then and they cannot be moral authorities now. The challenges of this age will need to be sorted by the men of this age. Their moral authority is simply their collective will to create a safe and prosperous society for their posterity.
Maybe white nationalism, however it is defined, is the right answer. Pinning white nationalist down on what the term means is not always easy, but maybe in there is the right answer for the plight of white people in North America. That will be determined as all such things are determined. Can it actually meet the challenge and are the trade-offs acceptable to the people adopting it? This is not a question for the dead, but for the white people living in the here and now.
If you like my work and wish to kick in a few bucks, you can buy me a beer. You can sign up for a SubscribeStar subscription and get some extra content. You can donate via PayPal. My crypto addresses are here for those who prefer that option. You can send gold bars to: Z Media LLC P.O. Box 432 Cockeysville, MD 21030-0432. Thank you for your support!
Promotions: Good Svffer is an online retailer partnering with several prolific content creators on the Dissident Right, both designing and producing a variety of merchandise including shirts, posters, and books. If you are looking for a way to let the world know you are one of us without letting the world know you are one one is us, then you should but a shirt with the Lagos Trading Company logo.
The Pepper Cave produces exotic peppers, pepper seeds and plants, hot sauce and seasonings. Their spice infused salts are a great add to the chili head spice armory, so if you are a griller, take you spice business to one of our guys.
Above Time Coffee Roasters are a small, dissident friendly company that roasts its own coffee and ships all over the country. They actually roast the beans themselves based on their own secret coffee magic. If you like coffee, buy it from these folks as they are great people who deserve your support.
Havamal Soap Works is the maker of natural, handmade soap and bath products. If you are looking to reduce the volume of man-made chemicals in your life, all-natural personal products are a good start.
Minter & Richter Designs makes high-quality, hand-made by one guy in Boston, titanium wedding rings for men and women and they are now offering readers a fifteen percent discount on purchases if you use this link. If you are headed to Boston, they are also offering my readers 20% off their 5-star rated Airbnb. Just email them directly to book at sales@minterandrichterdesigns.com.
I remember reading that some sociologists argue that there is something called the American civil religion. Basically it’s a concept that certain civil artifacts like the constitution and declaration of Independence are treated almost like sacred texts, and the founders are also treated with a certain degree of reverence. In the absence of a firm belief in God as the final authority we often fill the void with historical figures and their documents.
The anti-Whites and the White nationalists are both appealing to a human centered locus of authority. It’s gotten to the point that a Western political movement that deliberately puts God at the center as the final moral authority would be the most radical in the present context.
8
Centering God as the moral authority solves nothing because most living Christians believe that making decisions based on race is forbidden by God.
If Christians who have believe in a muscular, historic Christianity can persuade today’s Christians of their views then I will be impressed.
9
1
I think some Christians think this, but I am not sure it is a majority much less most. I think the bigger issue is that Christianity has been supplanted by civic nationalism for most white people as the moral framework of their politics. They have been conditioned to leave God out of their politics and in many cases, out of their lives altogether.
I am sympathetic to the plight of Christians, but I do not think an explicitly Christian political message is going to much better this time than when it was tried in the 70’s and 80’s. Instead, it needs to be a political movement that is accepting of Christians and willing to defend them on political and racial grounds. The term “white Christians” should be common with white advocates for this reason.
22
1
I quite agree with this
2
I’ve said it many times. Our salvation almost certainly runs through combining race and religion – and I’m not religious.
From what I’ve seen, of the whites who have awoken, the Christians are the only with the most fight and willingness to organize and take the punishment doled out by the usual suspects.
We’re fighting a religion. It’s hard to win if you don’t have a religion of your own.
9
I remember Hunter Wallace posting something at his blog awhile back about a white Christian couple in which the wife was artificially inseminated by a poor African. This was supposedly the height of altruism, carrying this impoverished foreigner’s baby to term. Reading that I felt like Ripley in “Aliens” when she stumbled on the queen’s nest of eggs. It’s seriously sick, some convergence between figurative cuckoldry and something more literal. The Orthodox and some of the emergent Christian nationalists seem untainted and compatible with what we’re trying to do. The rest—especially the prolife for everyone contingent—just want to protect the queen’s eggs and worship the alien. That’s worse than a suicide cult, as the suicide cult just wants to kill themselves, not you, too.
16
The Orthodox are the way they are simply because they’re a smaller sect (except for parts of Eastern Europe and Russia) and therefore haven’t been targeted by Globohomo, and also tend to take pride in their Byzantine aesthetic. I’m not so sure the Orthodox are naturally based though, and are vulnerable to the same disease that the RCs have.
The Greek Orthodox Church is the largest Orthodox church in the West, and as a result has been bitten by the neoliberal bug. (Just bitten, not overtaken like the RCs; but there will be more bites…) Bishop Elpidophorus, for example, has made conciliatory gestures towards gay marriage.
The Orthodox Church higher-ups seem to be rather above politics, as an organization. From my reckoning, they do not want to get involved with the issues of the day and prefer to just worship Christ without worldly distraction. This is probably an old reflex borne from years being under seige or in hostile environments…the Orthodox heartland was conquered by Muslims and steppe peoples for endless centuries. But they survived mostly intact, to their credit.
But will they survive neoliberalism, the ultimate conqueror?
3
2
That is disgusting.
3
“Centering God as the moral authority solves nothing because most living Christians believe that making decisions based on race is forbidden by God.”
More generally, it solves nothing because most living Christians simply do not accept the spiritual importance of This One Life (i.e., one long trial, a learning experience). Many just seem to lack Faith, outright. You try to speak to one of them about the afterlife, about loving Christ, about self-sacrifice and the nature of Evil; you’ll get a blank stare.
A man must first have Faith in Christ. Then he must do his utmost to not sin and repent like there’s no tomorrow. Quite frankly, I have found Christianity a tremendous spiritual boon to my own life, and I look forward to His final judgement, when He wishes it to come.
What Z says below (of many Christians) is also very true:
“They have been conditioned to leave God out of their politics and in many cases, out of their lives altogether.”
Christ is always in my mind and heart. And when asked by people, I’ll tell them so.
4
After the onset of the Industrial Revolution, God was replaced, not simply forgotten. He was replaced by Science (yes, I agree, man—not another god). The point is that material wealth was confused with spiritual health. But all is not lost as we are now seeing Science as the “god that failed” and there is a position open. We shall see who/what replaces Science.
John Jay meant exactly what he said in 1787-
“…Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
21
“Like the anti-whites who claim original sin as justification for their present behavior, the white nationalists pointing to the Framers are looking for a moral authority.”
It has not been my experience that WNs who point out the racial themes in the work of the Founders are doing so because these believe in the moral authority of the Founders. Rather, they are trying to persuade social conservatives that a racial understanding of the world is not immoral because the Founders did it too.
(A similar and fun experience for me was showing an older conservative who deified Lincoln as the OG anti-racist that Lincoln wanted to deport the blacks. He was dumbfounded and speechless.)
15
It is not immoral because these are people who are treated as moral authorities, or thought to be treated as moral authorities, held these ideas. White nationalists would nothing to say about the Framers if they did not think referring to them added moral heft to their arguments. As you say, the people doing this think it works on civic nationalists. I think this is a mistake and has the opposite effect. It is like telling a Muslim that Mohamed actually liked Jews.
4
Yeah, that time is long past where CivNats could allow themselves Old America’s great men. Of course, they never understood them anyway. Dwight Eisenhower had a portrait of Robert E. Lee in the White House and deployed the 101st to Little Rock at the same time.
13
Eisenhower – a man who held esteem for General Lee, who had stood for the dignity of his State enough to recognize the threat posed by the anti-Republican “Republicans”, while simultaneously he forwarded those very same tyrannical, homogenizing, moralizing goals that Lee abominated through reimposition of Radical “Republican” Reconstructionist tactics of force.
Anyone who is a CivNat/conservative at this point is a fraud and/or cargo cult member. There is no reasoning with them, only marginalization. National Reviewtards richly deserve to die in the extermination camps their racial enemies plan for them.
4
1
I wish I wasn’t as pessimistic as you, but yeah when I saw the regime tearing down the Civil War reconciliation monument the other day I had the thought that anyone who still believes in this pig-system at this point is a hopeless cause.
I mean, going through the motions is okay, as it’s not like we live in a free society, but actually acting like the “motions” mean something is…delusional.
8
If the destruction of that monument accelerates the trend of young white men refusing to debase and degrade themselves with military service, it will have been worth it.
9
The heart rending problem of the tearing down of the monuments to great (White) men of the past, is the erection in their place of mediocrities to be celebrated instead.
1
The WN argument WRT the FF is not difficult to grasp and for the most part valid, despite the term WN not existing at the time. WN was the default state of every euro descended polity at the time, just as Christian was the default religion. Wokester swarthy winges are irrelevant to the issue.
The WN appeal to authority is generally an appeal to tradition and white self interest, from what I see. The FF are part of this but not the sole component. I am not quite sure why Z keeps riding this hobby horse. Sure, when examined in detail, the “FF were WN” claim is a bit more complex, but it is still largely valid on its own merits and fair rhetoric.
Oh, well. It wouldnt be dissident-ish politics if someone was not splitting hairs on something barely relevant and making hay over it.
15
WN use the FF words to try to convince Normies to join the cause. It’s not a bad idea, but if Normie hasn’t figured things out yet, I doubt some words from Jefferson are going to get him over the hump.
Personally, I don’t care what the FF said. Sure, it’s nice that they agree with me, but if they hadn’t, I wouldn’t say, “Oh well, Jefferson said that he loved blacks and didn’t like distinguishing between the races, so I guess that I’ll give up viewing myself as a part of the American European people.”
We solve the problems of our time and place with what works for us.
10
Well said. I haven’t read Greg Johnson’s manifesto but I probably should. I am familiar with Jared Taylor’s arguments. My takeaway from his argument is that he does invoke the Posterity, first immigration act as a part of his argument. He makes two other arguments that ultimately I find far more persuasive.
1. We face an existential threat and that we have a sacred duty to our ancestors and our posterity to preserve our race. Our race is beautiful and wonderful in its creations and it is ours. It is here because of the sacrifices of our ancestors to preserve and develop it. If we love our civilization we must preserve our race because only our race will create our civilization.
2. Racial diversity in every historical instance leads to tension and conflict – more than in a homogenous society.
The latter two are far more persuasive. They are persuasive because of the vitriolic anti-white rhetoric that is constantly pouring from all of our institutions as well as the decisively anti-white policies they enact and carry out. After a few years of this, you look at Jared Taylor’s arguments and you realize that he is just giving word to the argument that the avowed enemies of the white race are making for us.
We face a serious issue and we must be up to the task or we are finished. I think Guillame Faye said best that our fetid elites do not realize the fate that awaits them if they do not wake up. Once the jackals are done feeding on us, they will turn toward the balconies of who threw us to them and show no mercy.
I discovered this recently. I had no idea Obama was pals with this vicious, genocidal sadist. That his peace prize has not been rescinded and that he lives in comfort in our nation’s capital in supporting this is a very grave development.
https://youtu.be/QFcbncHyk30?t=1055
3
“you look at Jared Taylor’s arguments and you realize that he is just giving word to the argument that the avowed enemies of the white race are making for us.”
Poorly said. I meant to say that Jared Taylor is merely formulating the proper reasoning and response to the argument that the avowed enemies of the white race are making for us. They are calling for our subjugation and ultimately our annihilation.
4
A fine summary RR. I’d like to add an argument for those who don’t feel a duty towards their ancestors or posterity:
Non-whites see you as white and many feel hostility towards you because of that. There is nothing that you can do to alter that.
A group will always beat an individual over time.
Therefore, if you want to save your skin, you must join your tribe.
Whites, whether liberal or conservative, who tried to be allies to non-whites are finding that this maneuver only buys them a temporary reprieve.
1
Your response reminds me of the videos I’ve seen of ex convicts describing their first days in prison. Regardless of race, the prison gangs (based on racial divisions) recruited them easily. The choice was made apparent quickly—tribe up or die.
2
The word racism didn’t even exist until coined by Magnus Hirschfeld of Die Institut für Sexuellewissenschaft (the Institute for Sexual Research) in Berlin, in the late 1920s. Asking the Framers to think about race in terms we in the modern world understand it would basically be asking them to time travel. Go back and you’ll see references in the past to America being a place of multiple races, by which they meant the Polish “race” and German “race” and French “race.” This made some sense as, again, these men couldn’t look into their crystal ball and see NGOs sending boats filled with unibrowed rapists from the Levant, or guys who speak by clicking their tongues eager to knock over old women for their purses in the park.
Ditto for modern concepts of slavery. Most of the founders had little problem with it for the same reason they had no problem with Republicanism or philosophy: these were ideas inherited by the Greeks, from whom they (and the rest of the Western world) took their cues. Take a look in the eyes of your average greeter at Walmart and tell me we still don’t have slaves. Or, as the kid in “Idiocracy” said (“Welcome to Costco. I love you.”) Slaves at least got to party on the weekend and sing and cut loose; they didn’t have diversity training and urinalyses.
Our main problem is having forgotten something those “Dead White Men” and most real men—even nonwestern ones like Khan or Tamerlane— throughout history understood. Who is right or wrong is determined by who is who wins in battle. That’s really as deep as morality goes. You have what rights you can physically defend. The reason Michael Anton doesn’t want you to know that is that he can’t fight. Do you fell your enemy with your sword? They you are a good man. Did he slay you? Then you are bad. Arguments, contra what Ben Shapiro thinks, don’t win you anything but arguments, and not even that when you’re arguing with a crazy person.
I’m not saying we do the Moldbug / Vox reactionary thing and fantasize about being lords with fiefdoms and start painting Warhammer figurines as we await Trump’s ascension to the throne. But the next time you see some prog’s Subaru in traffic, pay attention to the bumper. There’s usually a sticker that says: “War doesn’t determine who’s right. It determines who’s left.” It’s there to let us know supposedly how wrong war is. But you should start looking at it as a mantra for our side, as we prepare for whatever comes. Building a “wall” is no solution to a problem, unless you’re willing (and able) to pour hot oil on the man who would attempt to climb said-wall. The men manning our (mostly nonexistent) wall, can’t even handle the reins of their own horses without being accused of being whip crackers. We have to deal with the weak liars who run everything—who’ve enslaved us to this morality—before we can begin to doing anything of substance. Because right now we’re very much slaves. And not the happy ones making music with their corn jugs.
42
” You have what rights you can physically defend.”
This is the bottom line. For example, we know Abbott and DeSantis are not serious men because they have not developed weapons of mass destruction and the willingness to use them (they are frauds for many other reasons but this is relevant to the immediate point). Mao ultimately was correct. “Rights” are the pretense that there are things more relevant than raw power. Andrew Jackson was correct. “Law” simply is state force and the willingness and ability to use it.
For a very limited time a homogenous people with shared beliefs mostly did not have to resort to force to live together. Their descendants now are on the receiving end of state violence because they came to believe the propaganda that camouflaged the only thing that mattered, which was that ability to deliver pain and certain death.
10
I discovered this to my dismay just recently when I tried to run off a couple Recent Arrivals To our Shores from trespassing onto my neighbors property while she was at work. “we are just looking for work senor”. “no comprende senor”. I stood my ground and spoke firmly, repeatedly telling them to leave and that they had no business to be there. They lingered around the edges of the property for almost an hour, apparently hoping I would tire and go away since they obviously had no place else to go, but I was persistent, THEN an hour later I caught them at it again, this time after I routed them, they drove slowly away while I followed them in my vehicle. They slowly drove around the neighborhood up and down residential street, while I called 911 and tried to report what they were doing. The 911 operator declined to dispatch anyone as there was no immediate threat. Once I returned home and told my family and the neighbor, everyone was appalled, actually appalled and frightened for me saying that I was in the wrong and could have been arrested myself for stalking or harassing THEM. And this is why this country is in the sad situation it finds itself in today.
7
It’s a fairly thin line between you and the McMichaels
2
“while I called 911 and tried to report what they were doing.”
Yes. Indeed: your first mistake, I’m afraid to say. Whilst confronting these people is commendable, especially if you can vouch for your neighbour, involving The System is a backward step.
Of course, if your neighbour happens to have BLM signs in the yard, then perhaps offering assistance is something reconsider…
1
https://burnedoverdistrictobserver.wordpress.com/2017/07/10/joseph-sobran-on-why-they-hate-us/
Sobran’s famous quote goes here. Other than slaves, it probably never occurred to the Founders to import non-whites, much less gift them with citizenship and voting rights. They knew where they stood in relation to the rest of the world and did not have decades of public school education to not believe what their own eyes told them.
12
> main problem, which was the lack of human capital to exploit the country’s natural resources
Main problem for who?
10
It always pisses me off when leftards in particular foist the current thinking and morality on those of the past. They thought the way they did and acted the way they did because that’s just the way it was. It wasn’t necessarily better or worse than today, just a different time and place. But the tards will always say it was far worse because it was the evil White man just being his natural raciss self for excluding the noble black, red, yellow and bean man as part of our “Posterity”. I suspect at some point in the not-too-distant future, the tards will rue the day they championed our replacement, but then again, being tards, maybe not…
19
> It always pisses me off when leftards in particular foist the current thinking and morality on those of the past.
The disingenuousness of the left is personified in the “WWII soldiers were Antifa” meme, like the average soldier wouldn’t have defected and fought with the Germans if they caught a glimpse of modern existence.
16
Hell, they would have defected and joined the Germans if they knew what was really going on in the 1920s-30s.
8
I think this is overcomplicating things. Did the FF ever imagine opening up America to the whole world? Obviously not. But then neither did George III ever envision an English minority London. What we are doing today is so insane that it would never have occurred to them.
I disagree that men can’t be moral authorities. I think that’s how people often decide morality, whether or not that’s a good idea. But “daddy’s always right” seems to be built into the brain code. Whether or not that is “true morality” is a long, deep and probably endless discussion.
13
I was in London in 1986. It was still a white city. I cannot comprehend how a great city was destroyed that quickly. Insanity.
11
Thus also, and by the same means, was New York destroyed.
5
Absolutely, things are moving fast. Millennia are happening in decades demographically
3
Maxda: I was in London in 1980. It was already heavily infested with brown and black people. And the older industrial cities up north were even more infested. I saw my first Indonesians (fully veiled tiny asian women) in England.
Can’t say it any better than this:
“It will probably be asked, Why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the state, and thus save the expence of supplying, by importation of white settlers, the vacancies they will leave?
Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provocations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.
–To these objections, which are political, may be added others, which are physical and moral. The first difference which strikes us is that of colour. Whether the black of the negro resides in the reticular membrane between the skin and scarf-skin, or in the scarf-skin itself; whether it proceeds from the colour of the blood, the colour of the bile, or from that of some other secretion, the difference is fixed in nature, and is as real as if its seat and cause were better known to us. And is this difference of no importance? Is it not the foundation of a greater or less share of beauty in the two races? Are not the fine mixtures of red and white, the expressions of every passion by greater or less suffusions of colour in the one, preferable to that eternal monotony, which reigns in the countenances, that immoveable veil of black which covers all the emotions of the other race? Add to these, flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form, their own judgment in favour of the whites, declared by their preference of them, as uniformly as is the preference of the Oranootan for the black women over those of his own species. The circumstance of superior beauty, is thought worthy attention in the propagation of our horses, dogs, and other domestic animals; why not in that of man?
Besides those of colour, figure, and hair, there are other physical distinctions proving a difference of race. They have less hair on the face and body. They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour. This greater degree of transpiration renders them more tolerant of heat, and less so of cold, than the whites. Perhaps too a difference of structure in the pulmonary apparatus, which a late ingenious* experimentalist has discovered to be the principal regulator of animal heat, may have disabled them from extricating, in the act of inspiration, so much of that fluid from the outer air, or obliged them in expiration, to part with more of it. They seem to require less sleep.
A black, after hard labour through the day, will be induced by the slightest amusements to sit up till midnight, or later, though knowing he must be out with the first dawn of the morning. They are at least as brave, and more adventuresome. But this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present. When present, they do not go through it with more coolness or steadiness than the whites. They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation. Their griefs are transient. Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them. In general, their existence appears to participate more of sensation than reflection. To this must be ascribed their disposition to sleep when abstracted from their diversions, and unemployed in labour. An animal whose body is at rest, and who does not reflect, must be disposed to sleep of course. Comparing them by their faculties of memory, reason, and imagination, it appears to me, that in memory they are equal to the whites; in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.
… I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. It is not against experience to suppose, that different species of the same genus, or varieties of the same species, may possess different qualifications.
…When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.”
Thomas Jefferson, “Notes on the State of Virginia,” Query XIV
19
1
“in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous”
Jann Wenner said basically the same thing recently, and of course got canceled for it. As much as an old has been like Wenner who isn’t doing much anymore can be canceled. But nobody even tried to refute him. They no doubt thought the refutation was self evident, in light of all the hugely successful rap “artists.”
2
“Our modern idea of “white”, meaning broadly European, would have seemed strange to Thomas Jefferson.”
Modern white nationalism is a US phenomenon, and Europeans can still not quite fathom it — they have Irish nationalism, Scottish nationalism, French nationalism, Greek nationalism and so on, which for over a century have been largely defined as in opposition to other European nationalisms. The concept of a common European ethnicity still sits uncomfortably there. This held even in the USA, where many of the 19th and 20th century European immigrants to the USA were not held as equal to those already here — this applied to people from Germany, Ireland and later from Italy, Poland, Hungary and Greece. The white nationalism of today is possible only because of the deluge of non-white migration to the USA, largely after 1965.
One of the reasons why the founders could not have conceived of large-scale non-white migration to US shores was that the world was a less crowded place back then. India had maybe 200m (?) people back then, China maybe around the same, Britain around 15m and so on. Right now more and more of the world is becoming uninhabitable for many of the people there, and hence the inexorable urge to migrate to where the grass is greener.
6
“One of the reasons why the founders could not have conceived of large-scale non-white migration to US shores was that the world was a less crowded place back then.”
One of life’s sad ironies is that White medicine, technology, and food production is a primary reason these places have become so crowded.
It’s interesting to consider what would happen to Africa if Whites withdrew their support. The population explosion would reverse itself rather quickly due to disease, starvation, violence, and the occasional bouts of cannibalization. But hey, it’s Whitey keeping them down.
20
“One of life’s sad ironies is that White medicine, technology, and food production is a primary reason these places have become so crowded.”
That is true. A family might have six or seven children and have two reach adulthood. The infant mortality decreased because of Western medicine (vaccinations and other health practices). Likewise for food production.
3
Arshad Ali: The ‘Green revolution’ ennabled the non-White world’s population explosion and killed the traditional family farm in favor of agribusiness and chemical additives.
I’ll keep penicillin, but happily jettison most of the rest of ‘modern’ medicine – particularly ‘reproductive’ medicine.
“They have made themselves as Gods . . .” and have become the Devil’s servants.
I’m too lazy to look up the numbers but wasn’t another “issue” that whites were the biggest group by far at that point in time. This was really a mindset that went well into the modern age, that white people were the only game in town, even though it stopped being true over time. In other words, the founders wouldn’t have considered other groups because there were no other groups to consider.
This thinking can be witnessed in real time in a place like China where they view their ascendance as inevitable and that losing some Han is no biggie as “there’s so many of us, we’ve always been here, and will make more!”, even though a glance at the population tables show this view to be a little bit optimistic, to put it mildly.
4
“I’m too lazy to look up the numbers but wasn’t another “issue” that whites were the biggest group by far at that point in time.”
I think in the year 1900, one person in three was of European descent. Whereas today it’s probably one in twelve (or even more). The populations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America have exploded. White populations in North America and Europe increasingly feel under siege. And this at a time when their own economies are under stress and they are facing declining living standards year in, year out.
5
If they’re living in parts of the world that are uninhabitable it’s because they made them that way. If they want the grass to be greener let them plant seed. Our job is not to take every even brown person from around the world and put them on unemployment and give a hotel room.
9
Also hence the depop agenda, but you can’t say it, because Hitler!
Let’s be honest: eugenics has been a Germanic thing. Not exclusively, but influential in the US, UK, and Germany until some big wars sorted it out. Now we pay the price for our sin of preferring quality over quantity, good and hard.
Is it evil? I think abortion is an abomination, but I have mixed feelings about contraception, tbh. Good breeding? That’s all royalty and nobility did forever. What’s wrong with it, provided you take care not to become inbred? I’m glad my family was also at least a little picky about who they married lol.
I’m thinking of EMJ saying WASPs took themselves out of the game by not reproducing. He’s right, then again, living closer to nature might’ve prevented the flood and prevented WASP fertility drying up. Idk.
I mean, you keep everybody alive, and you end up creating a situation where you’re wondering if you have to cull them. That’s pretty dumb imo!
It’s a weird thing. One side basically fetishizes whiteness, the other side anathematizes it. I think it’s because neither has a white identity. You don’t think about this stuff if you have it. Of course you want to provide for your descendants. Duh. That’s natural and good.
Maybe it’s a reach, but I often get the sense of whites parroting the arguments of non-whites, so to speak. This is how out group people talk about the in group— either critical, or wanting to be part. Idk.
Generally, I see it as another symptom of whites’ alienation from themselves.
2
1
Agreed that it’s self-serving to interpret the past anachronistically.
In Federalist 2, John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and later Governor of New York, wrote, “Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people — a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs…”
Which, as pointed out, isn’t and couldn’t’ve been an endorsement of current strains of white nationalism.
The main conundrum has to do with assimilated Jews. Their racial antecedents are primarily white European but many would deny them membership in a white America on non-racial grounds. The same with meti Indians. Who’s in and who’s out is always ad hoc in time and place.
3
2
imbroglio: You are being dishonest and deliberately confusing the lines between race, genetic ancestry, and ethnicity. While meti Indians may be called Aryans, no White of European ancestry would consider them part of his race. And Jews, whether superficially ‘assimilated’ or not, have also never been considered a native part of what was White, Western Christendom, from which heritage America was born.
2
No need to go back into antiquity and the mists of time for “original intent” from dusty old documents written by white men.
Debating the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act, Ted Kennedy (“Lion of the Senate”, notoriously bad dater) said this:
“Our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually…
..the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset.”
This wasn’t considered controversial at the time, it was considered basic common sense.
No matter how explicitly laws are written or sold, it’s all pointless if our ruling elites ignore the letter and the spirit of the laws they pass.
TINVOWOOT
13
So why didn’t the stupid Republicans repeal it?
Bunch of limp-wristed dumb asses.
3
In two little words, cheap labor, and further the ability to undermine the working class’ solidarity when they were under serious challenge, and in disregard of their genuine contributions to the health and safety of the Republic.
Viewed historically, that was the vision of the genuine driving wheels of the Republican party at its inception, Yankee supremacists as they all were, and aspired to be in perpetuity.
4
Boarwild: Because it serves their paymasters’ interests. They wouldn’t hold elective office – would never even have been candidates – if they had any integrity.
Don’t look to electoral or party politics for any help or solution.
2
Yes, early American leaders would have never comprehend why we should want to flood our country with other races then teach them to hate us. But here we are.
The real problem is that we have a hostile tribe with significant power in running the country. I doubt the founders could have invisioned:
1. That hostile tribe setting the moral guidelines most whites, including most Christian religious leaders, follow.
2. The role of women in the culture and politics especially given how easy they are brainwashed and how much they want to appeal to the powerful.
All white nationalism, talk 9f secession, acceleration and whatnot is just political masterbation unless those 2 things are dealt with.
30
The first immigration act was limited to “white men of good character”…then the Bankers started to take over, soon joined by the proto-industrialists, which included the plantation owners, looking for cheap labor…The End…
10
The founders also never could have imagined TV and movies as weapons aimed at drilling nonstop progaganda about racism and equality into our minds.
1
Whatever mental contortions White nationalist come up with does not matter a bit so long as Jews control the media and the educational systems. It really is that simple. Jews showed up on boats from eastern Europe. They immediately went to work in an organized way to seize the social high grounds. Now you have generations of Whites brought up on false principles. Even if they could magically be brought to our cause we are now outnumbered by POC. The White race got out-played.
23
We most certainly did. But we are where we are – and we are in a very bad spot.
It’s going to be a long fight back. The good news is that Jews are slowly (quickly, even) extinguishing themselves in the states via mixing with whites and low birth rates. They also, stupidly, imported competitors.
Just a guess, but I suspect that the Jewish grip on power is loosening. Regardless, we can’t rely on others failing so that we might win.
It’s a long road back.
11
Jewish power has probably already peaked. In hindsight, the day Iraq was invaded was probably the zenith. But that doesn’t mean the immediate dropoff is precipitous. In 10-20 years I expect the difference will be a lot more noticeable. It’s noticeable now to any non-stupid person who is paying attention. Most of their support is among older people who won’t be around much longer.
6
Jeffrey Zoar: Those ‘old people’ are also, unfortunately, the largest cohort of Whites in AINO. As they die off, the starkness of our demographic plight will be far more visible to far more people – most of whom are our enemies.
Being a persecuted minority can leave one with paranoia and/or rage. It is not generally conducive to good mental health. Consider those White children suffering in majority non-White schools. Not merely physical suffering at the hands of joggers or mestizos, but mental suffering from the arrogance and insularity of the east and south Asians.
Yes, curse their parents, but we must find a way to give White youth hope and a positive identity and pride and will to survive and thrive – separate and distinct from all the rest.
2
Well said CoaSC. Despair and surrender are not an option. We have models and situations that are far more grave than this one: Alfred and Wessex; Aleric’s posterity and Asturias in Hispania; the Gates of Vienna … …
5
“Can it actually meet the challenge and are the trade-offs acceptable to the people adopting it? This is not a question for the dead, but for the white people living in the here and now.”
Like most, I fully realize that the label “white nationalist” is clunky at best. And, not surprisingly, Europeans find is bizarre. But we are trying to find a solution to our problem, not the problems facing Germans or English or French.
In America, we use the term “white” because it generally works. It works because most American whites generally identify as white though applying their own local culture to the term. It also works because white is how our opponents identity us.
As Z noted in his podcast on the Greeks, they didn’t view themselves as Greek. They were Athenians or Spartan or whatever city-state where they lived. But the Persians saw them all as Greek, making no real distinction other then realizing the internal differences among the Greeks might be exploited. So, when the Persians showed up, the various Greek tribes had to pull together and, in essence, become Greeks – one and all.
That said, what’s needed is for Americans whites to feel some form of identity, whether they find that in the term “white” or “Southern whites” or “Yankees” or “European” or “Christian whites” or whatever, they just need to find it.
It does matter that non-whites just view us all as whites, so, at some point, we’ll need to band together. But I couldn’t care less whether we band together as whites or band together as a coalition of white identity groups. What matters most is that we find an identity to counter the hate being thrown at us and the even more hate that’s coming our way.
So, no, the label “white nationalism” isn’t perfect, but it works for now. If something better comes along, we’ll use that. What matters is that whites rediscover an identity rooted in ancestry, culture and history, however broad or specific that may be.
25
Excellent comment. We also need to make sure that Whites don’t include (((Fellow Whites))), because their interests are in direct opposition to our own.
9
1
“It works because most American whites generally identify as white though applying their own local culture to the term”
I disagree. While most White people will put themselves into the category of “White” if asked about it, hardly any think of themselves as White in any way similar to how someone might think of themselves as “Italian” or “German” An Italian might try to keep the language alive and make Italian dishes like grandma used to make. They might even be devoted Catholics and tell stories of the “old country.” This thinking does not exist in any White people in the US.
The problem is we have allowed “American” to mean nothing. American could have been our ethnicity had we kept hold of it. Anyone born anywhere can be American. American can mean anything from speaking English to paying taxes to the US government to protesting. There are “New Americans” being born all over the world. From Libya to Mexico to Somalia to China. They are just saving up for the day they can come and join us in our nothingness and steal whatever they can get away with.
5
Wasn’t there a line or two about that in Full Metal Jacket, where the drill sergeant says something to that effect regarding the Vietnamese?
1
Inside every gook there is an American trying to get out?
2
Yep, that which we acquire cheaply, we do not hold dear.
2
In the early days of America, Whites thought the distinctions between the Anglos, the Germans, and the Dutch were more significant than the American Indians, who just saw them as White.
The Indians saw themselves as Iroquois, Sioux and Comanche. Whites also noted their tribes, but also saw them generally as Indians in a way the Indians didn’t see themselves, until I suppose, the Whites became a bigger threat.
It’s important to know how your opponent views you. We are attacked as Whites, therefore we must band together to defend ourselves as Whites.
3
Perhaps the founders were so based in their whiteness that they didn’t even need this concept to exist, like putting training wheels on Lance Armstrong’s bike. Imagine them sitting down to dinner and some pickaninny decides to open her yapper and give some political opinion as she serves the soup. What would they have said? It just never would have happened. Racial problems were nipped in the bud. A time when white men were perfectly sure of themselves.
25
The pickaninny wouldn’t have spoken up because she couldn’t have read. And certainly wouldn’t have been able to add anything of value to the conversation while Jefferson and Adams recited Cicero and Tacitus to each other.
Also slaves of any era – the white ones in Greece and Rome too – didn’t say anything pointed for fear of being beaten, at best. Though I would bet that our FF didn’t whip Miss Jemima for interceding with an “Aye sho’ don’ know bout nachrul rights Missah Juffason, but aye rekkon one day we gon’ have a Niggra as Vice Pressiden!”
They probably just politely chortled.
5
True. But I’ll bet the ones from the Carolinas would have given them something to think about after dinner.
I don’t think there is any good alternative to WN for Whites in North America. People of every other race are shamelessly promoting their interests, while Whites are either blind or too afraid. Promoting White interests is WN. And White interests should be promoted and fought for simply because it’s good for Whites. No other justification is necessary.
18
1
Yep, but the follow on effects are pretty good as well for all the other races herein. Look at any city run by non-Whites. All examples of failure.
2
Compsci: I am not the least bit concerned with how White interests ultimately ‘benefit’ non-Whites. They are not my people. They hate me and mine. They would prefer to kill me and take all my ‘stuff’ as well as my history and heritage.
I would prefer that non-Whites not benefit at all from the ‘follow-on effects’ of White rule, because they ought not be permitted to live in White societies.
4
That was not my point (Whites caring, or not caring, etc). The point was whether or not minorities should be so intent on replacement of Whites as a good thing, or in their self interest. It obviously is not. The remark is one based on current mixture, not what we want in an idealized (White) society.
1
@Zman, “Was the founding generation of America full of white nationalists?”
Easy one. No. Nationalists existed, sure. Hamilton, for example. But the majority of that generation had no interest in a new nation, but rather a federation of states. They had no desire to traveling for days or weeks to a national capital to petition their government for redress of grievances. Not when the alternative was if some damnfool neighbor who harmed you in the name of the “common good” could be dealt with that same day using tar and feathers and a split rail, and you could get right back to minding your own business.
13
They ignore the bits about our shared English ancestry. A Slav and Italian were White too, but not one of the founding fathers would have considered them the same ethnicity.
6
“White Nationalism” will never happen and it is pointless to discuss it. At best, it could be an alliance between different White peoples. Perhaps the EU and NATO (2 evil institutions) are the biggest expressions of White Nationalism.
Problem is, who are White people? IOW, how many White people in the US think of themselves at an identity level as being White? What language do “White people” speak? What denomination do we follow? Other than being attacked for being White, we have no shared identity.
Bottom line, White is not an ethnicity, it’s a race. We know we’re being attacked as White, but we do not have the underlying identity to get together as an ethnic group and defend ourselves as a collective the way an ethnic group would. It is a negative identity. I wish it were different. But you can wish in one hand….
In order for WN to go anywhere, we would first need a generation raised with a White identity. It needs to be at the core (it’s who we are) and it needs to be positive. I don’t see it happening anytime soon.
8
3
“…how many White people in the US think of themselves at an identity level as being White? “
Good one. However, I postulate more than you imagine. “The love that dare not speak its name” is not homosexuality, it is *race*—in this case the White race, but also most all races as well. To this effect, look to where and how White’s live. Even in those vaunted *diverse* cities we decry, one can walk about from one neighborhood to another and distinctly discern what race congregates therein. The issue here is not so much that Whites don’t identify as Whites, but they simply refuse to accept/admit that they do!
7
Hi Tars –
We are being given that identity. Even Ivy League females are remarking that white male graduates are struggling to find jobs while POCs are getting hired immediately. This is no longer affecting the dirts alone.
This will go in phass. As cloud and cloud adjacent and even white women are shut out, they will have no choice but to form an identity as white as it was chosen for them. This first phase will be purely self interest and an immediate expression of the survival instinct.
You are correct that a deep and positive identity is a vital long term necessity and a long term project. This is, in my opinion, the foremost task of, “dissidents.” We need to do this for ourselves as well as for our youth. School of The West is worth supporting as it is the only one I know of that is focused on western kind. We also need to form societies and associations where we build a living culture and also take time to be edified by our past.
We have to look at this as a battle that has been raging while we’ve been asleep. It has been a route because we didn’t show up. We have to show up now, and where the circumstances are not good, we have to do what is needed to turn them around and turn the tide.
6
“As cloud and cloud adjacent and even white women are shut out, they will have no choice but to form an identity as white as it was chosen for them. This first phase will be purely self interest and an immediate expression of the survival instinct.”
I suppose this is why Christians were well known for denouncing Christianity to avoid being thrown into the lion’s den?
In general, identity has to be instilled at an early age. Those White women will never embrace being White as an identity, mostly because you can’t. Identity is not a choice and cannot be chosen like that. No middle aged person is going to change their identity. While an adult can probably become self-consciously White, it won’t be very deep.
It is possible that children being raised will, through circumstance start thinking of themselves as White as a part of their identity. Being a minority at school will do this. i myself have this sense through being a minority in school. Problem is, this is traumatic. I cannot even imagine what White kids, even in all White schools, are going through with the school system being overtly anti-White and what damage this is doing to them. Add in all the LGBTQIPA++ BS and who knows the damage is going to be other than 20% of Gen-Z calling themselves LGBTQIAP++
Not to sound too autistic, but I disagree that people appeal to the Founders’ intent as some kind of moral authority, but rather as technical experts for the appropriate functioning of this republic they created.
I mean, if you want any machine to function correctly, shouldn’t you reference the operational manual provided by the manufacturers who built said machine?
4
Mr. Generic: I realize it could be merely stylistic, but even capitalizing “The Founders” nowadays implies nobility of thought or action. They were not atypical of men of their time and class.
And if one may assume you are referring to ‘muh democracy’ or even ‘muh republic’ by the ‘machine’ you mention, one might consider the operational manual the constitution.
Which, in the opinion of a few of us here, has proven wholly unsuitable and insufficient to safeguard the wellbeing and/or ‘rights’ of White people.
In which case, appealing to “The Founders” or “The Constitution” as a moral authority and/or plan for suitable governance reveals one to harbor strong civnat rather than dissident leanings.
4
The imperfections of the Constitution do not make those who admire it Grillers. That document functioned exceptionally well for almost two centuries–no mean feat. But it was insufficient to account for declining social capital and the intellectual flaccidity that seems inevitably to accompany extreme prosperity. But those flaws could certainly be ameliorated in a constitution of a future Whiteland. In fact, I would be surprised if the US Constitution doesn’t serve as a model that gets modified.
2
2
The issue that the US was a multicultural country from the onset. A truly homogeneous country doesn’t have a brutal civil war ending with one side subjugating & tribally cleansing the other with forced diversity less than a century after it’s founding.
Can’t have a moral consensus with people who are wired differently, White Nationalism fails to address the fact that some Whites are always going to be subversive. People like to point the finger solely at jews but the radical leftists in the north invented what would later be called feminism & practiced a form of christianity would evolve into what we now know as progressivism all on their own. Those people were just as unsalvageable back then as they are now. For every subversive anti White jew there’s an army of Whites who share near identical beliefs even if their underlying motivations are wildly different, the effect on society is the same regardless.
Once you start looking at it like that it becomes daunting since the reality is that most Whites alive today fall into that category to one degree or another. Worse yet is the fact they’re all working in unison along with non Whites to make absolutely sure ethnocentric people like us can’t organize politically without paying dearly for it. That won’t last forever though & when they become weak enough that they can’t stop that from happening there needs to be a defined group identity ready to go.
Just as non Whites need to be sectioned off because they’re genetically wired to be different so too do subversive Whites. That’s the only way to get a moral consensus but even among people like us that’s a hurdle since there’s an contingent of people obsessed with “one race, the White race” universalism where everyone would be ethnocentric if not for the presence of jews. At this point I think those types of people need to be boiled off as well since they’re only a few degrees removed from those who think non Whites can be reformed. People with utopian views utterly detached from reality, regardless of the specifics, were the origin & fuel of all this madness.
Every step of the way to the modern clownworld we exist in now involved radicals pushing extremism & slightly less insane group of people adopting a milder form of those utopian beliefs which inevitably gave way to the former. The only real difference between them is timescale, wait long enough & today’s moderates will become indistinguishable from yesterday’s progressives.
Race then acceptance of reality, in that order, should be a hard filter, from there a moral consensus can be made & with that a defined group identity can form. Anyone who pushes utopianism, regardless of the form it takes, should be sectioned off, that needs to be bred out of Europeans the same way savagery was.
12
“…the fact that some Whites are always going to be subversive.”
This gave me the interesting thought that when Jamal-in-the-hood accuses a successful black of “acting white” — Jamal is actually accusing the successful black of social subversion, of the same sort as we see from subversive white leftists.
5
“It is fair to assume that the Framers assumed and expected, therefore would have wanted, the country to look like them in terms of race and religion, long after they were gone.”
In other words, it is fair to assume the Framers were retards who couldn’t fathom their new country would be no different than empires of bygone eras.
I think it was antidem who pointed out the Founders were idiots for not understanding Plato’s point that democracy not only leads to a dictatorship, but the people will clamor for a dictatorship to save them from their own folly.
What did the moronic Founders do? They made it incredibly hard for a dictator (the original Roman definition, which has no negative connotation) to rule America, therefore dooming the US to suffer democracy for longer than it should.
So much of political commentary simply boils down to: “they were retards who thought they had found a way to escape the inevitable descend of Order into Chaos”.
History will judge the American experiment to be as trashy and ill-conceived as the Roman one. Started with clowns and will end with clowns.
1
5
As always I struggle to speak for “the founders,” but I feel certain that they were constructing a system that they themselves could live with in the there and then, and were not thinking 200 years ahead. Which is probably impossible for anyone, of any era, to do. What happens 200 years hence is a problem for the people of that time.
Rome and the GAE were probably 2 of the 3 greatest empires to ever exist. Calling them trashy and ill conceived strikes me kind of like saying real socialism hasn’t been tried yet.
10
You enjoy tossing out insults: retard, idiot, trashy. Something tells me they apply more accurately to the author than his intended targets…
3
I don’t venerate the Founders–at all, but they were not supporters of empire and imperialism. Those who immediately followed them did not share that sentiment.
1
This sort of post is self-defeating, demoralizing and a waste of time. If we can bring people this way by saying the Founders were white nationalists, it is stupid not to.
This thing isn’t a disseration defense, it’s an existential struggle. Winning through survival and self-determination is the only thing that matters.
If we wait until everyone holds correct notions of past, present and future — which no one can hold as Z would rather cat-post than finish his book — we’ll all be under the ground together, laughed at and lied about for eternity. But at least we didn’t think Ben Franklin was a white nationalist!
2.0 is beginning to look even dumber than 1.0. At least there was some passion to their foolishness.
Men follow fire, not footenotes.
2
Your comfort with lying isn’t as universal as you think.
Mechanics matter.
Societal problems are endless and evolving solutions can be messy, as history shows. Prolonged affluence has robbed us of the raw gauntlets that normally produce strong leaders and thereby lead to optimum remedies; such as was accomplished by our founders. It should now be perfectly clear that we in the West have never been more poorly led that at the present time. As such, disaster awaits, and is a necessary step on the road to redemption.
The elites want to create a circumstance in which the bottom of the social pyramid turns on each other in violent acts of mutual annihilation, thereby eliminating alpha males and ensuring the security of their dominance. Both Ukraine and Gaza are current examples of this manufactured evil. They win if we play this game.
No matter what you may think is the proper long term goal of societal evolution, you cannot get there without first addressing the seminal issue of pathogens holding ultimate power. You simply cannot fight the foe at your face when some asshole is stabbing you in the back.
3
There’s a certain amount of truth to the Woke claim that America’s government, or Western European’s, etc. are “products of institutional white supremacy” or whatever the latest fashionable charge is. As such, it’s quite plausible, and in many cases documented, that minority or outsider populations would be marginalized. In our nation’s history, the Native American and the Negro come to mind.
But while those arguments have some ring of truth, they fail completely in the limiting case:
What about those cultures that are in fact homogenous, 100% of the same race (Caucasian) or nearly so? Of course, North America never had that, except at local or regional levels and then only for limited times. But Western Europe? For centuries.
In those cases, any claim that “white government” only favored whites is laughable on its face: In those times and places where there was a homogenous population, how could it possibly be that the culture, the society, the laws were anything BUT products of the selfsame peoples? And obviously, if there was no out-group, then there was no “minority” to be marginalized, to be discriminated against.
What Z says was an 18th century conception of “race” actually lived on until well into the late 19th century at least. Nietzsche writes extensively on social issues in the Europe of his day. He spoke of English, French, Poles, Germans, as distinct races, each with its own cultural (national) traits.