Daily Mail talking like White nationalists, or at least Paleoconservatives

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 24, 2012, 10:16 AM | #

A global free-market in people, goods and services is one of the ‘principles’ of the ‘right’ - the liberal right aka ‘conservatives’ like Heffer.

Mr. Heffer is a supporter of maximally global, maximally unrestricted ‘free-market’ exchange grounded in liberal theories of individualism. Really one should not get one’s political philosophy from the “Daily Mail” unless one is very dim.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 24, 2012, 11:46 AM | #

Heffer has moved his stance with this piece.  But he is an Establishment toady through and through - that’s what you have to always remember.  The Daily Mail, with its unmatched expertise in leading the horse to water but never allowing it to drink, is a perfect foil for his bash-the-left game.

Heffer’s shift, I would say, consists in admitting that immigration might have been bad, rather than just multiculturalism.  Well, it’s not a whole lot of progress.  He wants integration (otherwise known as white genocide).  It’s very much the goal of the Establishment now.  Just look at what Heffer’s heroic fatboy Pickles proposes:

Mr Pickles has specified what this assault on multiculturalism will mean. He has said that public bodies’ obsession with translating leaflets into all known languages — and spending a fortune in public money on doing so — should end.

Learning English is one of the fundamentals of grasping the British way of life.

Etcetera, etcetera.

Also, note how weasily Heffer is being in this piece.  The offensive immigration is from Europe, of course, and by no means is it Moslem (aka Pakistani).  Oh my no, we don’t want our greasy ginger mop fried by a suicide-bomber or our bird-beak nose broken by a jihad brick.

Just look at the picture that is accompanying the article:

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/02/21/article-2104550-0150EDF7000004B0-834_468x286.jpg

Some East Asians or, possibly, South-East Asians.  Plenty of Europeans.  But Pakistanis?  Erm ...  Africans?  Ah ...

I will put up a piece later that really hits the revolution button.  And no, it doesn’t involve Establishment toadies.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 24, 2012, 12:08 PM | #

GW how does one get to have a problem like multiculturalism unless one has mass immigration - Heffer, as you say, is a establishment arsehole spouting shite. The Daily Mail constantly does this type of half-baked ‘letting off steam’ act.

His position is Roy Jenkins like - let them all become Englishmen - absurd.

The single and unitary world is precisely the place where an unlimited set of differences exist. Philosophically, far from casting doubt on the unity of the world, these differences are its principle of existence. The question then arises whether anything governs these unlimited differences? There may well be only one world, but does that mean that being French, or an Algerian living in France, or Muslim in a country of Christian traditions, is nothing?

The simplest definition of ‘identity’ is the series of characteristics and properties by which an individual or a group recognizes itself as its ‘self’. But what is this ‘self’? It is that which, across all the characteristic properties of identity, remains more or less invariant. It is possible, then, to say that an identity is the ensemble of properties that support an invariance. For example, the identity of an artist is that by which the invariance of his or her style can be recognized; homosexual identity is composed of everything bound up with the invariance of the possible object of desire; the identity of a foreign community in a country is that by which membership of this community can be recognized: language, gestures, dress, dietary habits, etc.

Defined in this way, by invariants, identity is doubly related to difference: on the one hand, identity is that which is different from the rest; on the other, it is that which does not become different, which is invariant – or more subtly there is a range of possible plasticities with regard to such properties but liberal ideology assumes that such plasticities are to be understood maximally, when in reality many are strictly attenuated.

An example of a false ‘radical plasticity’, in extremis, is the ideological fantasy of the adult ‘sex-change’ operation. This is not a legitimate medical treatment (some form of psychological therapy is in such cases); rather it is a liberally ‘shaped’ delusion made flesh. Equally just because there is a somewhat fuzzy boundary around questions of differentiation such as “what and who are the French?” that does not imply there is no boundary. To use an analogue from taxonomy just because it’s very difficult to define generically what a species is doesn’t mean that species are an illusion or do not exist. A species is a cluster of invariant traits which differentiates it from other species; i.e. individuals of species X are identified as such because they display the particular and specific features of A, B, C etc.

The affirmation of identity has two further aspects. The first form is negative. It consists of maintaining that I am not the other. This is often indispensable and unavoidable in human affairs. For example, an Algerian worker in France will forcefully affirm that his traditions and customs are not those of the petty-bourgeois European (indeed why should he deny what he most fundamentally feels himself to be?); he might even reinforce the characteristics of his religious or customary identity. The second involves the immanent development of identity within a new situation - rather like Nietzsche’s famous maxim, “become what you are”. The Algerian worker does not abandon that which constitutes his individual identity, whether socially or in the family; but he will gradually adapt all this, in a creative fashion, to the place in which he finds himself. He will thus invent what he is - an Algerian worker in Paris - not through any internal rupture, but by an expansion of identity. Yet the Parisian component, we suspect, will always be of secondary importance to him – an extraneously acquired peripheral accretion to his primary, non-European, non-French identity.

This is also true in reverse; say a population of Europeans were to live in Africa for several generations, they would not become genuine Africans merely through that process of relocation; yes they would be shaped by that experience of being in Africa but they would be in Africa but not of it (in anything other than a superficial sense). This obviously is far too difficult a notion for liberalism (of all types) and its curious cult-like believe in radical fungibility to acknowledge its saliency.

England with 50 million Africans pretending to be English would not be England as historically understood - it would a different social space populated by bad actors.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 24, 2012, 12:17 PM | #

Oh and on the EU many Labour MPs were on the ‘no’ side of the ‘in or out’ 1970s referendum - Thatcher also signed up to the ‘Single Market’ etc. This toy-town understanding of the world is silly - as if someone self-describes as ‘conservative’ they are irrespective of their beliefs and actions.

That ‘left-wing’ socialist hell-hole Norway (copyright one Glenn Beck), for example, wants nothing to do with the EU - can’t say I blame them.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 24, 2012, 12:45 PM | #

In a tangential, but related note, I’d like to flag up the disturbances last night in the Lancashire town of Rochdale which commentators are linking with the ongoing trial of 11 Asian men at Liverpool Crown Court on charges of ‘grooming’ underage white girls.

The Daily Mail makes the connection (as do the police themselves), but the BBC does not. Apparently there was a mention of the trial in the earlier version of the BBC’s report but it has now been removed.

The PTB are getting very nervous.

Posted by Dan Dare on February 24, 2012, 12:58 PM | #

I should mention, in similar vein, the confiscation by police of copies of the fanzine “Red Issue” outside Old Trafford before the recent match between Manchester United and Liverpool. The magazine had a detachable KKK-style mask on the rear cover which United supporters were invited to don to wind up their Liverpool counterparts.

This is of course connected with the recent prosecution of Liverpool’s Luis Suarez (a Uruguayan of indeterminate ancestry) for racist comments made to United’s Patrice Evra (a “Frenchman” hailing from Senegal).

Posted by Reid on February 24, 2012, 03:09 PM | #

Liverpool’s Luis Suarez (a Uruguayan of indeterminate ancestry)

He is very swarthy and his grandfather was black. He also appears to have mestizo/Amerind ancestry.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 24, 2012, 04:20 PM | #

Graham,

Your approach to identity is fine.  But you are looking at it as an object.  So you end up with descriptive but non-authentic elements. 

To illustrate the essential difference I am pointing to ...

About eighteen months ago I posted links to a couple of videos two or three times here which open up this question of identity, for those who care to look.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_YmKdcSZDw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_i2rp9k22E&feature=related

Here you see a folk tradition - a fertility rite, actually - of the Cornish town of Padstow that has been performed on Mayday each year for as long as memory serves.  It may be thousands of years old, and consists in two quite separate parades, blue and red, through the town and back again to their starting point.  So here you have a riot of discriptive elements out of which one can, should one choose, highlight aspects of a “Padstow identity”. 

But that is not really the point.  Look beyond that, beyond the event itself, beyond the music and the red and white clothing of the Old Oss tradition, beyond the thought that these same people have been doing this each year all their lives, as their fathers and forefathers did.  Look at the act of living of the people right there in the moment, unabashed and not at all immersed in the confection of the thing, but freed.  There, if you can see, is the authentic identity, the unique racial subject being the same only as itself.  There is the eternal nation in rude health.  There is Beal-taine, the spirit of renewal and transition himself.

What is real at the level of the collective group is precisely that, and when we speak about the being of the European type, it is that of which we are actually speaking.  There is nothing else but absence.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 24, 2012, 07:32 PM | #

Speaking of festivals – at the opposite end of the nation – there is this.

It’s a shame we don’t do more festivals/events etc., in the UK, unlike nations such as Spain - but for one thing they generally do have much better weather for them.

What’s that one the hippies do in America? Is it called ‘Burning Man’?

Posted by jamesUK on February 24, 2012, 08:41 PM | #

In a society that remains more than 90 per cent indigenously British, it is ludicrous to be ashamed of national traditions, rooted in common values from a shared past.

So much for mass immigration and the white genocide into Europe.

And I don’t see what you think is so great about this article from a White Nationalist perspective as it admits that most of the immigrants into Britain are economic migrants from the new EU countries most of which are Poles that share a cultural and historical relationship with Britain. 

As for the nonsense about Eastern European organised crime we know who controls that whose linage is not from Europe and the new Albanian mafia networks both of which are controlled and created by British intelligence.

Same can be said of the phoney non-existent terrorist threat which Britain is home to international terrorism both Islamic and non-Islamic around the world protected by British intelligence some of which are connected to terrorist attacks against US interests abroad.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 25, 2012, 03:36 AM | #

A quick comment.

Everything G. Lister says @3 is insightful and correct, so why this @1?

A global free-market in people, goods and services is one of the ‘principles’ of the ‘right’ - the liberal right aka ‘conservatives’ like Heffer.

It is simply untrue that the dominant Anglo-American conservative tradition, with its emphasis on liberty, private property, market economics, and the impartial rule of law, is in any way synonymous with modern globalization. Indeed, it is even untrue that classical liberals either were, as a matter of history, or necessarily must be, as a matter of theory, supporters of mass immigration, or ignorers of cultural and biological differences (see contemporary classical liberal David Conway’s In Defence of the Realm).

The modern “Right” is a ‘pseudo-Right’. That does not mean that the principles of private property and the free market have been in even the slightest way impugned or problematized.

One should not throw out the ‘baby’ of the great tradition of (individual) Liberty Under Law with the ‘bathwater’ of mass immigration, and the general refusal to recognize the boundaries of a sustainable libertarianism.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 25, 2012, 05:14 AM | #

There, if you can see, is the authentic identity, the unique racial subject being the same only as itself.

It’s like the fundies, in that they are unconscious of their belonging or their belonging only exists in their unconscious mind. However, one cannot be conscious of that of which we are unconscious. How then can it be absence when the unique racial being is only present in the unconscious mind? Clearly in the waking conscious they are completely unaware of their authentic identity. Like the fundies their waking consciousness is entirely an analog of their behaviour. Their consciousness works only upon objective observable things while their unconscious mind is entirely absorbed by this belonging. Their authentic identity is absent in their waking consciousness but present in their unconsciousness from which they are completely absent.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 25, 2012, 05:40 AM | #

Desmond.

a) There is no such feature in the architecture of the psyche as the unconscious mind.  Please escape from this Freudian error. 

b) Implicit belonging is instinctive, not unconscious.

c) “Absence” is merely the truth of our ordinary waking consciousness.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 25, 2012, 02:18 PM | #

Ok, so you don’t buy this theory of adaptive unconscious that…‘suggests that much of our preferences, attitudes and ideas come from the adaptive unconscious, subjects themselves do not realise this: they are “unaware of their own unawareness”? Even if it is instinctive, there is no awareness of it. This instinct is compelling them to act in a fashion of which they are completely unconscious. They cannot be conscious of that of which they are not conscious of. It’s not like fear where the instinct breaks through to the waking mind bringing with it anxiety and panic. It lingers perpetually in the realm of unawareness. Are there even any symptoms displayed? Fear may appear in a dream state, startled awake and yet ‘frozen in fear’. Thus fear is instinctive but symptoms of fear may display in the unconscious state of sleep. Yet these people are perpetually unaware of this implicit instinct of racial identity. Why?

Posted by Guessedworker on February 25, 2012, 07:19 PM | #

Desmond,

so you don’t buy this theory of adaptive unconscious

No, I “buy” the fact - not theory - of the attentionally present to being, and the ordinarily absent.

Even if it is instinctive, there is no awareness of it.

Of course there is.  You just don’t have a proper definition of awareness because you think you are, in ordinary waking consciousness, “aware”.  Set the bar higher.  Mark the divide at consciousness to self, not at being awake rather than asleep.

This instinct is compelling them to act in a fashion of which they are completely unconscious.. It’s not like fear where the instinct breaks through to the waking mind bringing with it anxiety and panic. It lingers perpetually in the realm of unawareness.

Exactly.

Are there even any symptoms displayed?

Yes, of course.  But they are missed, like the self is missed.  Your presumption for the aware subject is understandable but unhelpful.  Neither awareness nor the subject are what you suppose.

Yet these people are perpetually unaware of this implicit instinct of racial identity. Why?

This, Desmond, is the great question.  Well done for finding your way to it.

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 26, 2012, 04:08 AM | #

This, Desmond, is the great question.

It’s not though is it. On second thought the real question is how. Who cares about why. It’s really about how the implicit behaviour is manipulated.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 26, 2012, 04:52 PM | #

Desmond,

How?  OK, I can live with that.  Here is this same question as it interests me ... that is, turned outward from the evolutionary to face the problem as one not of instinct lost forever to consciousness but of instinct revealed, even if only potentially, in consciousness to self.  Meaning, which consciousness and which self is the issue:

If the ordinary waking state of consciousness is the whole operation of the cognitive (ie, non regulatory) mind seen from the subject, flowing out to the object world (as phenomenology insists), how did it come to contain within itself perceptual possibilities such as consciousness of the subject (or self) and of being, given that the object world contains no markers for them, and they offer no apparent fitness gain to the organism anyway?

This different way of looking provides different possibilities of thought, one of which is that the subject as it appears in ordinary waking consciousness is not the commander of all it surveys at all, but an ascription to it, and the ordinary waking state of consciousness itself does not, in fact, contain the full scope and function of consciousness.  Rather, it is an underworld, the world of the untermenschen, of fallenness, exile, confusion, or absence in which the subject is a process and a reduction.

In that case, we can speculate that the genetic package, if you will, includes the fully functional but also, unfortunately, a coding error which effects a weakness to the human capacity to energise at the required level for it.  Ordinary waking consciousness is the product of that weakness (which we have debated before, Desmond, when we discussed evolution, sight and grassland, and the development of the brain, particularly of the intellectual function - you championed language in that debate, as you will recall, but the motor is not really as important here as its effect).

Posted by Desmond Jones on February 26, 2012, 07:47 PM | #

The problem I have with the above analysis, although very well written, (thank you for taking the time to put pen to paper) is that it implies a potential return to a previous state of conscious. On the biological side, the fundamental differences in the view are in attributing consciousness, the whole package, to emergence versus self-interest.

For example, I’m a light in a fridge that was installed somewhere down the assembly line. When the door is open, I’m conscious (waking). Everywhere there is a bright bounteous luminosity. But in actual fact my whole being is composed of the light and the darkness. The uber and the unter. However, no matter how much I try I can never know the darkness even though most of my being is spent in darkness. I cannot be conscious of that of which I was never conscious. I don’t see it as fallen or exiled or confused because that infers a revelation, a homeland and an understanding known to me, ripped asunder by some genetic coding error. What if it isn’t? What if the unconscious has never been revealed, and waking consciousness did not emerge with the whole package but came after in the pursuit of self-interest via sexual selection? 

We can argue the point probably forever, however, why does it really matter? (Don’t get me wrong, the insights you provide are very intellectually stimulating and well worth my feeble attempt to grasp them) Shall we take Leningrad or encircle it and move on to Moscow? Isn’t that what Bowery and GT have done? Isn’t that what micro-communities and citizen’s dividends are all about? Are they not an alternate attempt to provide fertile ground that will encourage the implicitness without revealing an explicitness?

Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t know.

Posted by daniel2 on February 27, 2012, 05:33 AM | #

“Yet these people are perpetually unaware of this implicit instinct of racial identity. Why?”

One reason, if not the main reason, is because they are more or less lucky. They have had their interests served by the race as a group more than they would care to realize. Rather, they want to believe the story of their individual merit and achievement as being more pure, more honestly acquired, less exploitative of others and less indebted to the group than it actually is.

Posted by Graham_Lister on February 27, 2012, 08:00 AM | #

All this talk of ‘the unconscious’ got me thinking.

Throughout the history of the West we have identified ourselves more and more with the mythical isolated discursive mind. For example, the underlying conceptual structure of Kantian ethics places the will – that ignis fatuus of the West – in the role of the radically free actor/chooser. Why do we do this?

It is certainly telling that this retreat into the self is most marked under the rise of liberal modernity and modern capitalism, in which human beings exist economically as discrete and separate units that relate to each other as vendors and purchasers of everything from toothpaste to labour to sex. The logic of this economic theory and of liberal law and political theory, often founded on contractarian notions of liberty and obligation, yields the phantasm of human isolation and self-authorship that is today all but universal. It is a world which, though constantly recreated by all of its inhabitants and according to Debord in his “Society of the Spectacle”, “unfolds…as a pseudo-world apart, an object of mere contemplation.” The lived experience as an isolated mind is the phenomenal form of liberal-capitalism; and is all the more powerful in that its ideology exists primarily as a form of experience instead of as a body of maxims and principles that can be refuted or ignored.

But this illusion is not simply imposed upon us. Our self-identification with the isolated, autonomous thinking subject draws strength from our fear of the body and the transformations and dissolutions through which it lives and to which it bears witness. We know that we will die, and as we grow older we see how few of our accomplishments are built on anything more solid than sand. Through the constructed self, the specious verities of dogma and the solidity we pretend to achieve through discourse, we try to live in a world in which suffering, ageing, and death have no place. But these aspirations are doomed, because change and death are written in and by the very bodies that we are.

The temptation to flee the realities of life is as inevitable as its promise is but delusion. In ten thousand different ways we have sought a refuge in eternal truths, only to be expelled by yet another angel of mutability. It seems better this way, because the paradise of thought is like a prison:

Beauty is momentary in the mind,
The fitful tracing of a portal;
But in the flesh it is immortal.

Wallace Stevens - “Peter Quince at the Clavier”

Really it is not in the mind or soul but the flesh which is ‘divine’. The body is never the same; it grows, flourishes, sickens and dies, precisely as it should and in tune with everything else; but the rebellious mind tries to stop it in its tracks or demands that it exhibit different sensations and different emotions. As corporeal beings we are bound up with the interchanges of all things. Only the mind, terrified of death that our mutable flesh embraces, turns away from that commerce for the delusional pursuit of total certainty or eternity via the abstract. Those structures it builds to serve such ends are doomed to collapse; yet we continue to build them, while all unnoticed we, as actual physical beings in the world, make and remake our lives in common self-constitution and continuity over time.

Posted by Leon Haller on February 27, 2012, 08:52 AM | #

I recently purchased The Idea of the Self. Have others read it? Thoughts? Seems like many here are attracted to this subject matter.

http://www.amazon.com/Idea-Self-Thought-Experience-Seventeenth/dp/0521605547

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2012, 11:58 AM | #

Desmond,

The problem I have with the above analysis ... is that it implies a potential return to a previous state of conscious.

You are running far ahead.  One thing at a time.  All I am doing here is offering an explanation as to why ordinary waking consciousness cannot be the sum of our genetic endowment, given that:

a) Consciousness to self and to being (not identical phenomena) is knowable in and to the human mind and can be reproduced at will.  Further, when reproduced, it has the character of a forgotten authenticity (detached, normal, permanent, innate), and reveals the hitherto unsuspected inauthenticity (immersed, ordinary, transitory, artificial) of the usual subject and its experience.

b) The existential fact of consciousness to self and to being disrupts the current narrative of the evolution of the brain.  You will (no doubt quickly) deduce that by not addressing this consciousness, far from disproving the theistic claim, the current narrative is keeping it alive.  Either there is a significant adjustment required to the narrative or there is a god that explains extra-ordinary perceptual experience.

When the door is open, I’m conscious (waking). Everywhere there is a bright bounteous luminosity. But in actual fact my whole being is composed of the light and the darkness. The uber and the unter.

I’m afraid the reality of Mind is not so simple.  The opening of the door (waking from sleep) is actually the inter-connection of the three cognitive systems (intellectual, emotional, and motor).  It is a pretty basic inter-connection, however, without the systems harmonising in any way but just going off to do their own thing.

But this state of connectedness is ordinary waking consciousness, in which the subject is generated by the brain.  The subject does not pre-exist as an entity in its own right.  It is a product of the brain’s continual ascription of self to the object of passive attention, whatever that may be.  To really understand this, you need also to understand how the subject, object and attention coalesce in ordinary waking consciousness, and how, when attention becomes active, there is detachment and a certain harmonisation of the systems, whereupon another quality of subject - as described in (a) above - replaces the ordinary one.  This consciousness is consciousness of self.

... no matter how much I try I can never know the darkness even though most of my being is spent in darkness. I cannot be conscious of that of which I was never conscious.

Ordinarily, so to speak, the subject cannot “know” the welter of associated impressions, memories, habitualities, feelings, etc which Freud presented as a separate realm of Mind.  His use of the word “unconscious” is misleading because consciousness exists whether or not the three cognitive systems are connected (ie, even when the organism is asleep or under anaesthetic).  It is all a question of quality.  However, the associative network is a feeder to the cognitive process.  As a whole, it can never be the object of cognition itself.

I don’t see it as fallen or exiled or confused because that infers a revelation, a homeland and an understanding known to me, ripped asunder by some genetic coding error.

I hope I have given you some food for thought about that.  But don’t “spiritualize or religionize it.  I am only talking about psychology.

What if the unconscious has never been revealed, and waking consciousness did not emerge with the whole package but came after in the pursuit of self-interest via sexual selection?

There really is no Unconscious.  There is only the network of associations.  Consciousness, of course, is evolved.  But there is an “issue” to do with the energy required for active attention, from which everything that is behaviourally negative in Mind function (like hyper-individualism, liberal guilt, exogamous attraction ...) eventually proceeds.

We can argue the point probably forever, however, why does it really matter?

Because of the second half of the philosophy, which Rod Cameron once described as lacking the teleology to make an executable programme ... to make ideology out of ideas.

Shall we take Leningrad or encircle it and move on to Moscow? Isn’t that what Bowery and GT have done? Isn’t that what micro-communities and citizen’s dividends are all about? Are they not an alternate attempt to provide fertile ground that will encourage the implicitness without revealing an explicitness?

How can we be liberated unto ourselves if we retain the Judeo-Christo-liberal thought-world as our grand formative influence?  This effort has to be made, and it is an effort to re-centre European Man on his own axis.  Nothing can sustain unless it meets that standard of human authenticity.

Posted by sk on February 27, 2012, 12:25 PM | #

http://valeofdarkness.blogspot.com/2012/02/finally-someone-stands-up.html

Here is a way to move forward.  It’s called a consistent message.

Posted by Guessedworker on February 27, 2012, 12:35 PM | #

But, sk, you remain a liberal.  What will you do about that?  What can you do about that?  What can you do to stop yourself and your social order from following the liberal dispensation.

You see, you have to look at Mind as something that is produced for you, like a suit of clothes.  You may decide to stop being an athlete and become an astronaut.  But if your clothes say “run”, you will “run” no matter how much you want to walk in space.

That, sadly, is what’s called a consistent truth.

Posted by Robert Reis on March 10, 2012, 07:10 AM | #

http://cofcc.org/2012/03/anc-expands-employment-bans-to-mixed-race-peoples/

Posted by metal gear / iceman on March 21, 2012, 11:21 PM | #

Internationalism is simply a call for collaboration between workers.  Internationalism does not have to be cosmopolitan, capitalist and globalist to the extent of destroying nationalism within internationalism.

When Marxists talk about getting rid of the state, they mean getting rid of the state as a tool of class domination.  Communism and anarchism are not the same thing.

Posted by Wesley Mcgranor on March 24, 2012, 12:29 PM | #

White nationalism is a detriment to Paleoconservatism. Hispanic culture is by its very nature subversive. There is no hispanic race. The term is connotative for its Spanish origin, or influence. Hispanics are confused about their identity, and that shows in their ‘latino’ terminology. Hispanics can be white, mestizo or indian. They are also rooted in Catholicism.