RACISTS VERSUS RACIALISTS

Posted by Duncan Tyyne on November 10, 2007, 12:01 PM | #

Racialists succumb to the need to be exploited. They want to be conquered. Their respect for the other spells doom for their own. Their notion of equal worth is a grand illusion - really a delusion exonerating pillage and rape, all the while hiding its true nature behind a cloak of forgiveness and other coded traits of meek monstrosities.

The above calls to mind Alain de Benoist’s most recent pronouncements on immigration.  He calls for native Europeans to have “solidarity with [non-white] immigrants” as fellow human beings uprooted from their traditional homelands by international capitalism, at risk of losing their culture in a new society.  In the realm of pure principle I would agree; however, an analysis of the current situation shows that true solidarity between Europeans and the non-whites currently living among them is hardly possible.  For one thing, it must be acknowledged that such solidarity has to be a two-way street - that is, immigrants must respect the culture and heritage of Europeans.  We see the exact opposite among Mestizos in America today and the situation seems to be even worse in Europe with Muslims of various ethnies.  The non-whites are actively encouraged by the liberal establishment to resist assimilation and hold the white majority in contempt for its power and “privilege” in its own lands.  In “The Manifesto of the French New Right in the Year 2000” (http://home.alphalink.com.au/~radnat/debenoist/alain9.html), de Benoist calls for “acceptance of the other as Other through a dialogic perspective of mutual enrichment.”  How is such a thing possible when the establishment seeks to instill in whites a guilt complex while at the same time inflaming the non-white underclasses against them?  If the New Right managed to overthrow the liberals, would the aliens suddenly gain respect for whites and accept “mutual enrichment?”

Guillaume Faye may not score points with the commentariat here for his philo-Semitism, but he at least can be credited with understanding the current situation far more clearly.  From “The Cause of the Peoples?” (http://foster.20megsfree.com/468.htm): “If our communitarians really want to defend the cause des peuples, they might start with Europeans, who are now under assault by the demographic, migratory, and cultural forces of an overpopulated Third World.”  Indeed.  In my opinion, Alain de Benoist is an important philosopher who has many worthwhile ideas, but he has imbibed a few drops too many of the left-wing Kool-Aid when it comes to immigration and multiracialism.  And so by the definitions of Constantin’s article, Alain de Benoist might be a called a racialist (insofar as he acknowledges biological race) and Guillaume Faye would qualify as a racist.  I think it’s clear which viewpoint better equips us to deal with the current reality.

Posted by skeptical on November 10, 2007, 01:05 PM | #

Great image!

From what piece of art does it originate?

Posted by James Bowery on November 10, 2007, 01:54 PM | #

It is pretty silly to claim that one cannot be a racialist while one places a higher value on one’s own genetic group.

The real conflict isn’t between racialism and favoritism but between the Malthusian and Cornucopian.

If push comes to shove it is only the hypocrite or his extended phenotype who would dispute the right of any to fight over the last morsel of food—the last drop of water.

Posted by zusammen on November 10, 2007, 03:18 PM | #

We can divide our priorities into a greater and a lesser struggle. The muslims divide their religious cause into a greater and lesser jihad. In either case, the greater struggle takes place within the race, or for muslims, inside the faithful. The lesser war is against hostiles to the race, or for muslims, the infidels.

Neither race realism or aggressive racism are practiced because the greater struggle for love of one’s own has been neglected in favor of a lesser struggle against aggressive hostiles. The war against these hostiles has thus been feeble in its effect. It’s like expecting the lid to blow off without having any great pressure inside the cooker.

Inverting our priorities by placing the emphasis of struggle outside our group has never produced any decisive results for white people. Not for the new Klan, not for the neo-Nazis, not for those who have wasted years online racing to be the first to copy the latest black crime news report against whites on their favorite message boards.

Despite years of attempts by churches, governments and political organizations to encourage denial, more people are realizing that Western society has for the last few hundred years been founded upon a negative principle, one in which the individual is placed above reality.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pZRZuHqBK0Q

Posted by Svigor on November 10, 2007, 05:12 PM | #

Skeptical, I believe it’s a 3rd Reich era sculpture.

Posted by John on November 10, 2007, 06:10 PM | #

I always thought “racist” was a communist smear word that mischaracterizes affinity one naturally feels for one’s on ethny (and/or natural aversion to outsiders). Don’t think much of “racialist” either.

Posted by Alex on November 10, 2007, 06:53 PM | #

I’d tend to agree, John…

Posted by May Canady on November 11, 2007, 03:59 AM | #

“Great image!
From what piece of art does it originate?”

It is a sculpture by Arno Breker I believe it’s called “The Guard”.

Posted by Joe on November 11, 2007, 06:06 PM | #

Stop posting articles by this crackpot.  MR is turning into a joke.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 12, 2007, 12:52 AM | #

Good comment by Duncan Tyyne.  I dunno, I find I can’t read de Benoist.  I could never finish his articles in French but I thought it was just me:  “I’ll put that away till later.  I must be tired:  I’m not concentrating.  This guy’s putting me to sleep.”  Now I find I can’t read his stuff in English either.  No matter what language it’s in, it puts you to sleep.  He complicates the simple.  There should be a law against that.  Most writers are out there trying to simplify the complex.  So much for his hard-to-penetrate style.  As for content (difficult to discern where style is a hindrance to actually reading an article):  I reject anyone who counsels or seems to counsel compromise on race-replacement.  Therefore I reject de Benoist.  (I also dislike him but let’s not make this personal ...)

Complicated philosophy isn’t needed.  How much complicated philosophy does it take to say “We have a race we’d rather not see replaced”?  Was that complex?  Gee, to me it looked pretty simple ...

Posted by Duncan Tyyne on November 12, 2007, 09:56 PM | #

Good comment by Duncan Tyyne.  I dunno, I find I can’t read de Benoist.

Thank you for the compliment.  While I seem to hold de Benoist in slightly higher esteem, I can understand completely why people dislike him.

He complicates the simple.  There should be a law against that.

Intellectual masturbation is always a waste of precious time and energy, but all too many professors are getting paid good money to do it nowadays.  That being said, I think anyone interested in de Benoist could avoid such twaddle by reading his interviews and shorter articles online, and Dr. Sunic’s Against Democracy and Equality.  I have a copy of On Being a Pagan myself, but haven’t gotten around to reading it yet.

I reject anyone who counsels or seems to counsel compromise on race-replacement.  Therefore I reject de Benoist.

It’s as simple as that.  De Benoist says of immigrants in the Manifesto: “They should be able to observe necessary general and common laws without abandoning the culture which is their very own. This communitarian politic could, in the long run, lead to a dissociation of citizenship from nationality.”  Fat chance.  An even sillier version of this idea is put forth by the British mystic John Michell:

Like most native Britons, I would never have voted for “multiculturalism” if given the chance.  But now that it is here, I accept it as a product of God’s will and see it as a divinely given opportunity for this country to regain its former condition as a land of many different tribes and peoples, where the highways are sacred and everyone can travel unmolested, but everywhere you go people are different - and you have to get on with them.  (Confessions of a Radical Traditionalist, p. 247)

Indeed, Britain was once a land of many different tribes and peoples: Old Europeans, Celts, Romans, Saxons, Angles, Jutes, Norsemen.  All white peoples.  And does one frequently get molested on highways in homogeneous countries?

I actually recommend Michell more highly than de Benoist: he is entertaining and to-the-point, even if his focus on mysticism is largely irrelevant to the political interests of whites.  But at whom is the “you have to get on” message supposed to be directed?  White Britons have already prostrated themselves before the altar of “multiculturalism” (really multiracialism).  And if Michell expects the Muslims and Africans to “get on,” he’s only whistling Dixie.  He has a libertarian position on drug use: perhaps he was on something when he wrote that, and certainly when he equates the will of organized Jewry and a bunch of self-hating white liberals with the will of God.

Posted by Resa on November 15, 2007, 05:48 PM | #

The art looks like a combination of Russian and Greek.

Posted by Tommy G on November 16, 2007, 08:58 AM | #

“True understanding of the feminine nature of the universe can only be acquired by walking the path of relentless racism. Racists have a healthy hate.”

GW, thank you for inviting CvH to write at your site.

Constantin von Hoffmeister is a genius!

Posted by Wild Bill on November 18, 2007, 01:07 PM | #

It is hard to make people listen;
they are consumed with their own thoughts and desires;
and have little time for yours. 

The trick to making them listen is
to tell them what they want to hear;
to fill their ears with whatever is pleasant to them. 

This is the essence of of seductive language. 
Inflame people’s emotions with loaded phrases,
flatter them, comfort their insecurities, envelop them in fantasies,
sweet words and promises, and not only will they listen to you,
they will lose their will to resist you.

quoted from The Art of Seduction
Ch 10
Use the The Demonic Power of Words to Sow Confusion

Posted by Fred Scrooby on November 18, 2007, 11:32 PM | #

The main problem with this school system, as any Euro will recognize on reading the article, is the race of the students:  they aren’t white.  That’s why they behave in this way.  The secondary problem is the Jews have succeeded over the past fifty years in taking away the rules that might have imposed an atmosphere of discipline and respect conducive to a minimum of learning and civil behavior even given that the students aren’t white. 

This sort of public school situation is what the Jews living in Euro countries feel is “good for the Jews.”  The Jews love this, otherwise they wouldn’t be fighting against Euros every step of the way to keep this sort of situation the way it is — which is exactly what they do (to dispute that that’s what Jews do is to lie or to have no eyes).  They do it because they see Euros as their enemy and therefore want to make sure Euros have plenty of societal problems like this to contend with.  If Euros didn’t have Jewish-created societal problems like this to contend with the Jews would be burning with jealousy of them, would be more irritated and put out by them, and would be more fearful of them.  That’s why the Jews like it when Euro societies have plenty of these kinds of problems to contend with, and try to keep it that way. 

Euros don’t realize Jews like it.

A Euro reads this article and recoils in horror, asking himself what in hell’s going on. 

A Jew reads it and has a strong sense of satisfaction that in this way, through this sort of destruction of schools and society, the Euros are being kept down so Jews have neither to envy them nor fear them nor hate them so much as if things were going well for Euro society.

A Euro reads it and immediately thinks of ways in which to remedy the situation, mainly by making it that not so many non-whites are in the country or school system and, pending that, by re-imposing discipline and rules. 

A Jew reads it and immediately thinks of ways to force Euros not to remedy it, but to leave it in place so it continues to fester:  Jews read it and want more non-whites in schools not fewer, and want no discipline or rules, not more of them.  Remember, in the Jews’ mind the name of the game is “punish the whites; punish the Euros; we don’t like them; they’re our enemy.”  Euros don’t know this is what goes through the Jews’ minds; don’t know this is how they think. 

Obvoiusly there are exceptions; obviously there are plenty of Jews who feel exactly as Euros feel on reading this article.  But such Jews aren’t running things; the other kind are, the kind who hate Euros. 

A Euro reads an account of an all-white school where students behave normally and feels a sense of satisfaction. 

When a Jew reads an account of an all-white school he feels no satisfaction but only frustration, anger, and anti-Euro hatred, and the first thing that pops into his head is “Why aren’t there more non-whites in this school?,” and often he’ll immediately start agitating against the “racism that’s keeping the school all white.”  He won’t be satisfied till he’s transformed the school into the horror described in that article.  Then he won’t send his kids to it, of course.  He just wants it there, harming Euro society to punish that society for making him feel like an outsider. 

Simple facts such as these, which no one can dispute, are why Jews and Euros shouldn’t live together in the same country.  What makes Euros happy makes Jews miserable, and vice-versa:  what makes Jews happy makes Euros miserable.  All-white schools make Euros happy and Jews miserable.  Race-replacement immigration makes Jews happy and Euros miserable.  Christmas and Easter make Euros happy and Jews miserable.  Destruction of white neighborhoods through forced integration breeding high street crime and societal decay makes Jews happy and Euros miserable.  And so on. 

Does anyone doubt the Jews want such things?  Let doubters look at what Jewish organizations (the ADL, the ACLU, the SPLC, the People for the American Way, the AJC, etc.:  there many dozens of significant ones, either Jewish or Jewish-backed, all pushing the same agenda) and Jewish public individuals are always promoting, insisting on, attacking, praising, and condemning, and let them look at the directions in which all Jewish-dominated or -heavily-influenced organs of society such as the news and entertainment media, publishing, the legal profession, and the university professoriate are forever trying to push things.  And let them notice that there are no exceptions to this behavior among Jews:  the desire that society move in this degenerate direction is universal among Jews.  You simply can’t find significant exceptions to it among them.

I’d love to be shown wrong.  The problem is, the nightmare is, I’m not wrong.  Of course there are Jews who don’t agree with pushing things in this direction but apparently they’re too few, so exert no influence and don’t even show up on the radar screen of Jewish-Community behavior.  They’re invisible. 

(Hat tip)