Saturday, May 18, 2013

More thoughts. The evolution of a word


 
Are you assaulting me because I’m White?
How do you react to this poster? Is it antiracist or racist? Why?


The word “racist” is so common today that you may have trouble imagining a time when neither the word nor the concept existed. Yet such a time did exist, and not so long ago.

The first appearances of this word seem to date to the 1920s, in both English and French. At that time “racist” was a translation of the German völkisch and, as such, referred to the “blood and soil” nationalism so prevalent in Germany and in other countries that looked to Germany as a model (Taguieff, 2013, p. 1528). It remained a rather esoteric term during the interwar years, being narrow not only in its range of meaning but also in the political spectrum of those who used it—essentially the left, if not the far left.(1)

All of this changed with the Second World War. At first, the word “racist” was used mainly in postwar Europe—as part of the effort to root out ex-Nazis and their collaborators. Bit by bit, however, it became more widely used elsewhere, particularly in the contexts of race relations in the United States and colonialism in Africa and Asia. It also began to appear in the emerging context of Afro-Asian immigration to Western Europe. “Racists” were no longer Nazis. They could in fact be people who had valiantly fought against Nazi Germany.

Yet there were certain unspoken limits. By and large, this word was not directed against non-Europeans. Even today, it just doesn’t sound right when applied to a man with brown or black skin, no matter how intolerant he might be. A racist should at least look like a Nazi.

Besides becoming broader in meaning, this term also became less descriptive and more pejorative. It took on a highly emotional intent, even more so than words like “bastard!” or “liar!” Pierre-André Taguieff describes this transformation:

[…] over the last thirty years of the 20th century, the word “racism” became an insult in everyday language (“racist!” “dirty racist!”), an insult derived from the racist insult par excellence (“dirty nigger!”, “dirty Jew!”), and given a symbolic illegitimating power as strong as the political insult “fascist!” or “dirty fascist!”. To say an individual is “racist” is to stigmatize him, to assign him to a heinous category, and to abuse him verbally […] The “racist” individual is thus expelled from the realm of common humanity and excluded from the circle of humans who are deemed respectable by virtue of their intrinsic worth. Through a symbolic act that antiracist sociologists denounce as a way of “racializing” the Other, the “racist” is in turn and in return categorized as an “unworthy” being, indeed as an “unworthy” being par excellence. For, as people say, what can be worse than racism? (Taguieff, 2013, p. 1528)

What can be worse than racism? The question would have been incomprehensible a hundred years ago—and not just because the word didn’t exist yet. The underlying concept didn’t exist. People did not consider it sinful to prefer the company of their kith and kin. Nor did they consider it unfair to judge non-kith and non-kin by a higher standard. Such individuals existed outside one’s moral community and could not be trusted to the same degree as someone within it. So where’s the unfairness? And where’s the sin?

Note 

1. The first author to use the term raciste seems to have been Leo Trotsky in his work Histoire de la revolution russe (1930), in which he applied it to traditionalist Russian slavophiles. During the late 1930s, and with the rise of Nazism, it became much more negative than the German term it had originally translated, so much so that a German anti-Nazi, Magnus Hirschfeld, introduced it into German for his work Rassismus. His book then appeared in English translation under the title Racism (1938). This was the first appearance of the term “racism” in the title of a book, and it was really at that point in time that it entered the language of academics and political activists (Taguieff, 2013, p. 844; Wikipedia, 2013).

References 

Taguieff, P-A. (2013). Dictionnaire historique et critique du racisme, Paris: PUF.
 
Wikipedia (2013). Racisme - Étymologie
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racisme#cite_note-10

 

 

35 comments:

Kiwiguy said...

Interesting. There is now of course a massive industry designed to combat the preference you refer to. Taxpayers in the UK apparently contribute to such charities, a rather Orwellian situation where the government ignores their concerns and uses their taxes to try to "change minds".

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100215921/why-are-taxpayers-supporting-pro-immigration-charities/

Kiwiguy said...

Not sure if you saw this map.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/

Also, an earlier Pew study on attitudes towards immigration levels.

http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-global-trade-but-not-immigration/

Debbie Kennett said...

Thanks for this interesting post. I hadn't realised that the word racist was such a recent addition to the English language. I thought you might be interested to know that the online Oxford English Dictionary (available free to most people in the UK through their local library) has three references from the 1920s:

1926 Manchester Guardian 22 Sept. 5 If the French people and Government show that they desire to come to a real understanding the opposition of the German Nationals and the Racists will be nullified and will soon disappear altogether.

1927 Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 21 385 The government bloc reached an understanding with the most notorious Racists.

1927 Amer. Polit. Sci. Rev. 21 383 That such arbitrary tactics were not applied solely to the Left Opposition is made clear by the complaint of the Racist deputy Eckhardt.

(Source: Oxford English Dictionary: http://www.oed.com)

Peter Fros_ said...

Kiwiguy,

I was surprised by the high level of public support for immigration in South Korea, despite relatively high levels (the highest in East Asia). Sweden seems to be another outlier.

Debbie,

Thanks for the OED info! The post has been corrected accordingly.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with your claim that the concept of "racism" didn't exist until the early 20th century. Your definition of racism there only encompasses racial preference, when racism is often defined (though not universally) as hatred or dislike of someone or a group of people on the basis of their race/ethnicity. And nobody ever considered it unfair to judge people outside of their group by different standards for simply being outside of their group? Really? And you don't think that's unfair at all now?

This is just like people who go around claiming "political correctness" is an invention of communism/marxism, as if the simple idea of standards against speech, practices etc. that might offend a certain group never came about until then. Political correctness doesn't apply to just minority or "marginalized" groups, which the communist groups in power of entire countries certainly weren't.

In fact, I don't think the term and overall definition of "sexism" existed until pretty recently- does that mean it didn't exist until whenever it was defined, and that people beforehand never had a problem with what that might entail?

You seem to be conflating the codification of a defined concept with the idea of it existing at all, and especially the claim that reactions based upon them didn't exist until they were outlined. That's the only explanation I can think of for you claiming something so foolish.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with your claim that the concept of "racism" didn't exist until the early 20th century. Your definition of racism there only encompasses racial preference, when racism is often defined (though not universally) as hatred or dislike of someone or a group of people on the basis of their race/ethnicity. And nobody ever considered it unfair to judge people outside of their group by different standards for simply being outside of their group? Really? And you don't think that's unfair at all now?

"Racism" isn't a neutral term. It's an emotive term that evokes primitive feelings about what's "bad" and "evil". You yourself say that it implies something "unfair". Before the 20th century, there was no association between racial preference, dislike, discrimination, etc. and these primitive negative feelings. So the concept of "racism" indeed did not exist.

An individual organism like the human body engages in individual organism preference, "hatred", "dislike", discrimination, etc. against other individual organisms such as bacteria via its immune system. But the concept of "individual organism-ism" as an emotive term that associates this behavior of individual organisms with primitive negative feelings does not exist. Your body's white blood cells treating your own cells and the cells of another organism differently is not considered "unfair" and "bad" and "evil". Perhaps in the future the concept of "individual organism-ism" will be created like "racism" was before it.

Sean said...

Anon, a label for 'lack of natural fairness' could be applied to anyone without stretching the concept. Peter's analysis suggests 'racist' is a concept which is properly used in a very specific way: about whites.

Anonymous said...

Isn't it the same as Heretic from an earlier age?

Anonymous said...

Anon,

I never said that racism is a "neutral" term, and while I'm not going to argue that having a preference for your own race is wrong, that is much, much different from disliking, discriminating, and hating someone simply because of their race. However much the definition of "racism" is abused and manipulated- such as how many leftists claim racism is "prejudice plus power" and therefore only whites can be racist- a definition many people seem to agree on is these forms of irrational discrimination, and to claim nobody, anywhere, had a problem with irrational discrimination on the basis of race until the 20th century (or, since racism wasn't really defined until the mid 20th century, the past 50+ years), is simply beyond delusional. I see many white nationalists and such claim people everywhere (and still technically do) prefer their own race until recently, but this might be the first time I've seen anyone claim even these feelings were purely inventions of 20th century liberalism.

I find the unfairness implied by Frost (and you), beyond a basic feeling of preference, wrong because it isn't always rational. To go on that elaborate comparison of a group interacting with out-group members akin to a body fighting off bacteria rather paranoid. Not everybody from outside of your group is a threat or a danger, and there are ways a group can ultimately come to the conclusion they aren't and not hold them to higher standards, even if you do prefer your own group.

Sean,

The ultimate bias with how "racism" is employed has nothing to do with the question as to when the concept came into existence.

Anonymous said...

I find the unfairness implied by Frost (and you), beyond a basic feeling of preference, wrong because it isn't always rational. To go on that elaborate comparison of a group interacting with out-group members akin to a body fighting off bacteria rather paranoid. Not everybody from outside of your group is a threat or a danger, and there are ways a group can ultimately come to the conclusion they aren't and not hold them to higher standards, even if you do prefer your own group.

I'm not sure what you mean by "irrational". It sounds like you're just using it as an empty emotive term - a stand-in for "bad", "wrong", "evil", etc.

I didn't make an "elaborate comparison". It was a simple analogy. The concept of "racism" didn't exist before the 20th century that associated certain behaviors with primitive negative feelings. Currently, no concept of "individual organism-ism" exist, whereby certain behaviors of individual organisms are associated with primitive negative feelings. Individual organisms engage in discriminatory behavior against foreign organisms. White blood cells selectively target foreign organisms. These could surely be described as xenophobic hate crimes.

Anonymous said...

Yes Anon, "bad", "wrong", "evil", are all just empty emotive terms with no sensible basis. Prior to the 20th century, nobody had any moral revulsion to the idea of irrational- meaning, if you want so badly for me to elaborate on what I mean by irrational, based on faulty statistical inference, an uninformed personal bias or personal moral deficit etc.- treatment towards members of another ethnicity/race. Nobody ever had any problems with discrimination or maltreatment on the basis of race for reasons that had no sensible basis and were born of a wrongful inference, and were likewise removed from simply preferring your own kind, which would entail simple freedom of association.

I know the way "racism" is often employed, such as by the left, wouldn't truly allow for the concept of "rational" discrimination, and especially how they overwhelmingly focus on racism committed by whites, but I'm just throwing this out before you lump me with that.

Let me put it this way- genocide on the basis of race could be defined as "racist". You're telling me revulsion to that didn't exist until the past several decades?

I sincerely doubt you're this far gone to really argue any of that in face of what's been outlined, and that you're either a troll or are just trying very hard to save face with saying "bad" and "wrong" are just "empty emotive terms", so I think I'm done here.

Anonymous said...

You're just using words like "irrational", "uninformed", "moral deficit", "wrongful inference", etc. as stand-ins for empty emotive terms like "bad", "wrong", "evil", etc.

"Irrational" is just anything that deviates from your personal preference for what should constitute the proper ratio of favorable/unfavorable behavior between people from different races.

Not only is what you claim to be "irrational" and "rational" merely your personal preference (and hence not actually "irrational" or "rational"), but such views can only be the subjective preferences of the gene or genes that express them, since ultimately what constitutes "favorable" and "unfavorable" behavior only has meaning in terms of interests - the survival and reproduction - of the gene or genes.

Anonymous said...

"In fact, I don't think the term and overall definition of "sexism" existed until pretty recently"

It's the same argument. "Sexism" and "racism" are primarily political weapons and that is what the words mean. Those words didn't exist as political weapons until recently.

The proof of this is shown by how the defintion of what is racist can change while the meaning of racism stays the same e.g. at one time saying "negro" was racist and "colored" not racist then both "negro" and "colored" became racist and "Black" not racist then all three became racist and "African-American" not racist etc but all the while the true definition of "racism" as a political weapon remained fixed.

Anonymous said...

Racism is like what the witchcraft was to the Puritans: it's everywhere, invisible, always working its evil tricks, requires constant vigilance to ward off its influence, and if you're accused of it, it's already too late, you're screwed.

panjoomby said...

btw, the word "sexist" (as a pejorative, hostile term, weapon, etc.) came into play somewhere between 1965 & 1968.

Sean said...

Following the discussion is too difficult with multiple 'Anonymous' commenters. Unless anons want their comments to be passed over unread, they should use a name.

Ben10 said...

Racism...race...
I'd like to go back to some basic concepts (again) as more and more the whishfull mantra 'ALL scientists say that races don't exist' is repeated ad nauseam, for example here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrAiiUMbdW4&feature=player_detailpage

Basically, 'ALL scientists' refers back to Lewontin, a jewish american biologist who discovered in 1972 that the variation of some allelic markers is 80% between individuals regardless of their ethnic group, rather than between ethnic groups. This means that indeed, no human subgroups, or subspecies, or race, could be defined based on these markers.

Problem #1: it has been pointed out (the paper is linked in Peter's blog) that, using Lewontin's techniques, one could NOT differentiate known canine subspecies such as the Wolf, Dog, Coyotee, dingos etc., into different subspecies?

#2: the Lewontin's fallacy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewontin%27s_Fallacy

#3 Quantitative rules are used by naturalists to define species and subspecies. For example based on measurable phenotypic and genetic differences, quantitative thresholds can be set to separate species into subspecies.
It's on Goodrumj site:
http://www.amerika.org/conservation/the-race-frequently-asked-questions-f-a-q-by-john-goodrum/
go to the question:
Q: How genetically differentiated are human continental populations (the major races) from one another compared to populations of other species?
Answer:"...the level of genetic differentiation among human populations is not especially small, and in fact is entirely adequate for race designation, particularly when coupled with consistent morphological differences..."

#4, so it appears that there are scientific evidences to support the existence of different human races/subspecies than against, but the problem is that, if you mention it, shit happens in your lab: no grant, ostracisation, and eventually you'll loose your job.

That reminds me of the incredible story of Percival Lowell who could see chanels on Mars with a 15inches refractor. That himself he was convinced of it and could see the channels, OK, but how come ALL his collaborators could see the channels (perfectly invisible since they don't exist) as well?
Well, it was darwinian selection at work: those who could not see the channels were fired.

Anonymous I said...

"Following the discussion is too difficult with multiple 'Anonymous' commenters. Unless anons want their comments to be passed over unread, they should use a name."

This isn't your blog, and you don't control the people who post here. So maybe you can speak for yourself, but that's fine with me. I love reading the Anonymous posts.

In fact, I'll even go one step further, and say that anonymity is symbolic of our situation. Because it is only under conditions of anonymity that we have the security of knowing ourselves safe - that those who may know us from another board (or real life) may attach a person to a remark. Moreover, there is reason to believe that anonymity forces discussions to remain about *issues* rather than personalities, since the ad hominem attack becomes impossible when all one has to attack is a statement.
___________

"Racism is like what the witchcraft was to the Puritans: it's everywhere, invisible, always working its evil tricks, requires constant vigilance to ward off its influence, and if you're accused of it, it's already too late, you're screwed."

You know, I've argued with my friends about the best way to describe our situation through analogy. McCarthyism, the Church's persecution of Copernicus, all kinds of comparisons were made. But yours wins first prize. I love it. That's it exactly, and I will be repeating what you wrote with modifications many times throughout my life. Because it is absolutely true:

Racism is for us today what witchcraft was for the Puritans. It is everywhere, invisible, always lurking in the shadows, requiring constant vigilance to ward off its malefic influence. And once you're accused of it, Heaven help you, because it is already too late.

Ben10 said...

In my experience, the accusation of being racist is always associated with this attitude of i-know-all of the accuser, usually quoting 'All scientists' to accuse those who disagree of biggotry, ignorance in basic scientific facts and therefore stupidity.

Well, it is not helpfull to deny the accusation of racism, because it is true actually. What is more helpfull is to argue your case so you don't look ignorant.

There are at least 3 possible arguments: 1) the existence of human races is supported by science 2) From the reading of this site and others, 'Racism' is a natural extension of sexual selection and Evolution. 3)Evolution implies the exact same responsability that people face when they receive an inheritance dearly acquired by the hard work of their parents.
When a white european woman decides to introduce 50% homo erectus genes into her descent, she gambles her inheritance in the casino and few wins.

Finally, there is a spiritual, non materialistic aspect associated with evolutionary inheritance. Genes don't matter here, they are just a material emergence.
For example, when presented with pictures of east asians that look exactly like them, and material evidences of their genetic similarity with asian people, amerindians still consider they are born in America as a de novo spiritual 'race' with its own fate.

Peter Fros_ said...

"And nobody ever considered it unfair to judge people outside of their group by different standards for simply being outside of their group? Really?"

Anon,

It might be more useful for discussion if you dropped words like "nobody" and "ever."

But, yes, the world was a very different place a hundred years ago, perhaps more so than you think. Almost everyone systematically judged others on the basis of who they were (race, nationality, religion, etc). This was most obvious in marriage and courtship, but it was also true in the choice of personal friends and business associates, as well as education and health care. Finally, very few people challenged the sanctity of national borders and the need to discriminate between citizens and non-citizens.

Before the 1920s, the closest thing to antiracism was the abolitionist movement. But abolitionism was much more restricted in its aims. Even after the Civil War, when the American South was under military occupation, most Whites continued to send their children to segregated schools and practice other forms of racial discrimination. The abolitionists only wished to ensure that blacks had the same political and legal rights as whites did. And this was a time when the political and legal spheres of life were less important than they are today.

"And you don't think that's unfair at all now?"

No, I don't. Some kind of discrimination is necessary, at least between citizens and non-citizens.

Ben10 said...

Discrimination between "citizens and non-citizens" ?

Discrimination for what? the right to vote?
what a joke, give them the right to vote to all of them, now. Any illiterate bambula that stepped on the french 'territory' for more than 5 minutes should be legalized immediately and should be able to vote.
May the farce be known at least.

By the way, do Amerindians vote for the US election? nope? does it mean that they are non-citizen or illegal in America?
These purely administrative concepts have become meaningless and empty.

The Protocols are the new Constitution.

Daybreaker said...

The term "racism" is a political weapon to facilitate white genocide.

Mass non-white immigration into all white countries (and only white countries) plus forced integration means no more whites. It's obvious and inevitable. And that's genocide, because it's eliminating a race by policy.

How can a white object to this without being "racist"? You can't, and that's the point.

The word "racist" applies to whites, demonizing if they defend their collective interests, or even if they say they have collective interests. Obviously a people that can't express or defend its identity and common interests can't sustain itself. It must cease to exist, under any attack. Whites are under attack. So their inability to stand up to the "racism" charge means they will cease to exist. That's the point.

The "racist!" attack is inherently anti-white. You can tell it's not a neutral term, because when non-whites show fierce hatred for whites, people reach for terms like "reverse racism".

Also, "racist!" has never been neutral language, which would be required for a proper scientific term; rather from the start it was normative and also prescriptive, because it meant that the people charged with racism should vanish away, at least politically. (And with the assumption that they were so evil built in, why not totally?)

If you have a term that applies to people of one race, and that implies that they are hateful and should vanish away, what does that suggest? Genocide.

When that term is used to stifle resistant to policies that definitely will end whites, such as mass non-white immigration and forced integration, what is the ultimate aim of that word, what is the agenda built into it? It's a weapon to suppress resistance to white genocide.

The "racist"-hunters are objectively anti-white and they always were. Some are suckers, and they are still guilty. Some are too smart to really believe that this all adds up, but they don't care because they are biased against whites, to the point of facilitating white genocide. In they end, their subjective frame of mind is unimportant. It's what they do that matters.

Anti-whites who use the "racist!" charge to destroy white identity, prevent the defense of white interests and suppress resistance to non-white mass immigration and forced integration are collaborators in white genocide.

And no, if you really are facilitating genocide, thinking that you are a superior person and those resisting you are unscientific fools - which is what the anti-whites think - is not a valid defense in morality or law.

Peter Fros_ said...

Ben,

I don't like to delete posts, but your last one was "over the top." If I was living in France, I could be prosecuted for your comments.

Daybreaker said...

To respond to the thread questions, the first I assume translated:

Are you assaulting me because I’m White?

Yes, they, and by they I mean anti-racists and ethnocentric immigrant non-whites, definitely are assaulting us because we are white.

How do you react to this poster? Is it antiracist or racist? Why?

The poster is clearly not anti-racist. Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white. It shows sympathy for whites being attacked. That is the opposite of the anti-racist attitude.

We shouldn't say it's "racist" either. "Racism is a term invented by anti-whites to facilitate white genocide, and it is still used the same way. For a white person it's like saying "please kill my race, we've got it coming." No we don't, and anyway genocide is wrong; this is the real point.

I like the poster. It's brave. It's so hard to speak out, because whenever we do under our own names we get punished: socially, in being fired and being unable to get work, in legal harassment and so on. To speak up plainly as whites is an act of defiance, of freedom. It's an assertion that we are human and have the right to exist. Good! Very good!

I am writing this after the heroic suicide of Dominique Venner, who killed himself in Nortre Dame Cathedral, in front of the altar like a Greek hero, to protest the cultural and physical destruction of the white race. (The mass media are covering it up, keeping silent or saying his protest was only about gay marriage. No, that's one small part of what it was about, and he explicitly said in his last messages that overturning an infamous gay marriage law is not enough, we've got to address the invasion of or land under the cover of baleful metaphysics.) So seeing this poster in French, I have that in mind too. Long live France! Long live the French!

I like that the white guy in the picture isn't super-handsome or anything. He's just a regular white guy.

Hollywood promotes this idea of a hero white, who shows his goodness by taking the side of non-whites against ordinary whites. It's to encourage white people to betray their own. The anti-white traitor is of course a handsome Hollywood star. I don't like the anti-white traitor as hero meme.

Sean said...

Thinkers like Auguste Comte were suggesting the amalgamation of whites with blacks long before anyone wrote satire on the policies of Napoleon III. See here and also take note of the ideas advanced by Charles Fourier. Political trends and tendencies have repeatedly showed themselves in France before any other state. Now we have a mainstream intellectual like Taguieff criticizing the concept of racism, and he is pro-Israel. Think about that--please!

Daybreaker, regarding your reference to 'heroic suicide'. Without illusions (memes), life would be harder than death.

Daybreaker said...

It's not a question of whether individual lives or deaths would be easier without illusions; the life or death in question now is that of the community, or rather the stakes have been raised to the life or death of the entire white race, including all our nations.

It isn't a question of an individual clinging to his illusions out of lack of strength to live without them, but of communities, and now an entire race, succumbing to poisonous memes.

It's these memes that make collective death seem the easier choice than struggling for our common survival.

Terrorized by words like "racism", white people check out on the struggle to live, which by the law of nature is a collective struggle in the long run, not an individual one. Instead of engaging, the illusion-addled abide in distractions and fantasies; whether these are the crass and glossy fantasies produced by Hollywood or the more intellectually ambitious ones produced by an equally anti-white academia doesn't matter.

For a man to die defending his city on battle is a harmonious thing. For an old soldier to die willingly to combat the poisonous memes that are killing not only his nation but his entire race is also a harmonious thing.

Biased self-deception would tell us that there is no need for me, little me, to be the sacrifice. Convenient self-delusion would suggest that if dozens of books and countless articles have not done the trick, the next one might; so why not enjoy a comfortable old age, and let some illiterate boob sacrifice himself, if sacrifices have to be made.

The truth is, the achievements possible for an individual are small compared to all the white race can do in its future, if it has one. For an individual to seek the most favorable reception for his own work, no matter how meritorious, by not saying or doing anything too controversial, by checking out on the defense of the white race, is ultimately irrational.

Peter Fros_ said...

Daybreaker,

Suicide is a bummer. You get to do it only once and it precludes further action.

Why not just "come out" and say what you think? In public. And say it calmly and lucidly. Sure, you'll get a lot of flak, but that's nothing compared to suicide. After a while, you might even start to enjoy being a whole person --- someone who is the same in public and in private.

Daybreaker said...

Obviously for suicide to be the best solution is exceptional. In this case the hero was 78 years old and had already written many books and articles, and had organized people as best he could, and he had a military record that testified that his final act was out of courage, not weakness. It would be a disaster for young people to do the same thing.

At the same time, it's an illustration of a rule which is of general application, that it's the responsibility of the individual to decide honestly when it's time to stop protecting his feelings, his reputation, his material circumstances and even his life, and as his highest priority do the right thing for the gravely endangered human collective of which he is a part. And if the assessment is honest and as objective as possible, it cannot invariable result in the decision not to sacrifice. Occasionally the right answer will be: "Time to die."

That stands to logic, but it would sound like empty words if a man of intelligence and strong character had not shown that he meant it.

Unfortunately, under an international anti-white regime that grows steadily more intolerant, totalitarian and finally genocidal, that kind of thinking is increasingly relevant.

That poster that started this thread - a hundred years ago it would not have gotten a good response because nobody would have known what it meant. Now it doesn't get a good response because under the surface everyone knows what it means, and they also know the harsh social and career penalties for admitting the truth. The witch hunts are real, as Jason Richwine discovered. It's safer to side with the bullies, so people do.

We have already passed from a situation that is genuinely democratic to one where democracy is on the way out (if only through the long term implications of mass third world immigration) and where the goals on one side are totalitarian and genocidal, and on the other side necessarily revolutionary. (As the alternative is to peacefully accept genocide.)

This is what the anti-whites want:

As the evening progressed, the parents of both the bride and groom made speeches. Speaking off the cuff, Garity’s father, the political activist and politician Tom Hayden, who was Fonda’s second husband (neither parent want Troy to bear the weight of a famous last name), said that he was especially happy about his son’s union with Bent, who is black, because, among other things, it was “another step in a long-term goal of mine: the peaceful, nonviolent disappearance of the white race.

In the face of that goal, which is actually being brought about, quite swiftly, by mass immigration and forced integration, polite words that are simply smashed flat by the "racist!" accusation and punishment by the law have proved inadequate.

An old man dies. White babies have a better chance to have a future. A good trade.

Sean said...

Daybreaker, I think you're barking up the wrong tree. Every human that ever existed was playing for the very highest of stakes. We have preparedness to learn certain habits of mind; fitting implicit rules of thumb to the environment.

Why don't we have conscious logical calculation as the default? Because in most real world situations logical reasoning requires more reliable information than is accessible--it does not work. Our default is implicitly processed rules of thumb to unconsciously make decisions. Then come rational-sounding 'reasons' which are are quite often ex post facto, being borrowed from moral philosophizing or mass culture (memes).

Unconscious rules of thumb include 'don't step out of line'. It is that, and not thought--through reasoning (or memes), which causes people to go 'talk the talk' of the current intellectual fashion. Trying to create a meme of white genocide by repeating that phrase, or explaining to egalitarians how fundamentally irrational they are to go along with policies of extinguishing their nation, is a waste of time.

They may say they have long had a personal goal of racial amalgamation, but do you really believe people like Hayden ever 'walk the walk' by moving to a mainly black neighborhood and sending their children to school there? No chance. Statements like Hayden's are just paying homage to community mores of valuing everyone equally; in personal life egalitarians send their children to the best schools, even moving house to do it, and they move heaven and earth to get them good jobs. If moral reasoning really had brainwashed liberal elites, they would think of everyone as relatives,and act on that in their personal life, but they don't.

We are programmed to emulate successful people. The business end of the pro-immigration lobby hammers home that their opponents are criminal lumpens. You can't get more self defeating than Venner.

Daybreaker said...

Sean: "Every human that ever existed was playing for the very highest of stakes."

That's just another way of saying that there's no such thing as high stakes. That's not true.


Sean: "Our default is implicitly processed rules of thumb to unconsciously make decisions. Then come rational-sounding 'reasons' which are are quite often ex post facto, being borrowed from moral philosophizing or mass culture (memes)."

The default is implicit processing, but explicit processing can over-ride implicit processing.

For example, it's natural to fear jumping out of a plane, but it's also a common recreation. We have internalized the rule that this can be done safely, and that's true.

People are also being propagandized with falsehoods, such as: there is no difference between races other than the color of the skin, and any white person who objects to his race being swamped by people of other races is a stupid, insane, evil hater. This, collectively, is fatal in conditions of mass immigration, and the anti-whites are also imposing mass immigration.

Implicitly, people don't like this. They have an evolved predisposition to fear it, because that's adaptive. Hence "white flight". But explicit processing backed by state power rules.


Sean: "Unconscious rules of thumb include 'don't step out of line'. It is that, and not thought--through reasoning (or memes), which causes people to go 'talk the talk' of the current intellectual fashion."

Fear of stepping out of line is only one factor. There is coercion for a reason. If it people wanted multiculturalism, there wouldn't be departments armed with coercive power to manage and enforce it.

If an aversion to stepping out of line was enough to keep people saying only the "right" things, there would not be witch hunts like the firing and mass castigation in the mass media and in academia of Jason Richwine.

What would happen if there was even one American state that was explicitly for whites only? White people would go there, in a trickle and then a flood. They wouildn't dare say it was about race, they would say it was "good schools" or something. But they would flee to the refuge, and in doing that they would protect their future.

The Communists prevented anyone fleeing East Berlin with a wall; the "anti-racists" stop working class whites (who can't price themselves out of "diversity") from reaching safety by white flight by aggressively introducing imported "diversity" everywhere and forcing integration, so that there is nowhere to run to. It's still about forcing something unwanted on people.

Daybreaker said...

Sean: "Trying to create a meme of white genocide by repeating that phrase, or explaining to egalitarians how fundamentally irrational they are to go along with policies of extinguishing their nation, is a waste of time."

White genocide is a reality. Resisting genocide is a moral and legal obligation, not "a waste of time."


Sean: "We are programmed to emulate successful people. The business end of the pro-immigration lobby hammers home that their opponents are criminal lumpens. You can't get more self defeating than Venner."

I am well aware that anti-whites demonize anyone resisting the process of white genocide by using the "racist" label and in every other way they can, and since they control the mass media, academia, finance and they law, they have all sorts of other ways.

Anti-racists consider themselves superior people, and they consider they are justified in forcing the abolition of the white race because they are correct and their enemies are just unscientific fools, irrational, haters, vile lower class scum and so on. Of course, that's how you would expect genocidal totalitarians to think.

To say you can't get more self-defeating than Dominique Venner and link to the depraved insults of Femen is only to support their propaganda.

If the insults of people like Femen were enough to prove sacrificing yourself for your people was "self-defeating", that could condemn everybody from Jesus of Nazareth to King Leonidas.

Daybreaker said...

Here is the situation. If you declare that the white race is the cancer of human history, as Susan Sontag did, you can be a member of the cultural elite. If you say the white race must be preserved, like Jared Taylor, you're condemned as a racist, harassed by "antifa" thugs and not allowed to hold peaceful meetings. If you do bogus pseudoscience that fits nicely into the anti-white agenda, as Stephen Jay Gould did, you are a splendid fellow. If you do sound science that fits in with scientifically uncontroversial facts, but your work does not suit the anti-white agenda, like Jason Richwine, you are forced to resign, damned as a racist and a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews, and lumped in with the "criminal lumpens" even if you are manifestly smarter, better educated and more courteous than your accusers. Laws are brought in by fiat, without popular support, that inevitably mean the elimination of the white race. Mass non-white immigration and forced integration will definitely have that effect. Many other laws are brought in, regarding "disparate impact" and "affirmative action", that tend in the same direction.

This is a genocidal situation. White genocide is a reality.

Daybreaker said...

"Racism": one little word that did a lot.

Daybreaker said...

Here, after the recent murder of a white man by non-whites in London, is the word "racism" at work, in the Daily Mail:

Detective Inspector Ed Yaxley, of Avon and Somerset Police, said: 'On Wednesday evening, we were contacted by people concerned about comments made on social media accounts.
'We began inquiries into the comments and at around 3.20am two men, aged 23 and 22, were detained at two addresses in Bristol.
'The men were arrested under the Public Order Act on suspicion of inciting racial or religious hatred. Our inquiries into these comments continue.
'These comments were directed against a section of our community. Comments such as these are completely unacceptable and only cause more harm to our community in Bristol.
'People should stop and think about what they say on social media before making statements as the consequences could be serious.'


That is the voice of the anti-white regime, cracking down on whites who don't want what is being imposed on them.

Sean said...

"Kahneman: That's right. System 1 can never be switched off. You can't stop it from doing its thing. System 2, on the other hand, is lazy and only becomes active when necessary. Slow, deliberate thinking is hard work. It consumes chemical resources in the brain, and people usually don't like that."

You concur with Kahneman in believing that the in the normal circumstances of life stakes are low, whereby we don't care enough to use the most efficacious cognitive mode.

Not so. Think of a girl spending hours in front of the mirror, and trying on a dozen t-shirts before going out. Plenty of career criminals drive or wear every dime they make. For every individual the stakes can't be be any higher than they are already, and that is why people use implicit rules of thumb (their most effective mental mode) to live their lives-- and choose political veiwpoints. Ex post facto, they (we) use effort-requiring 'higher' level thought to give a convincing rationale that is in line with their particular community's ethos.

Usually that is along the lines of: 'my effortful moral reasoning overrode morally flawed implicit rules of thumb'. Whether it's egalitarians in affluent communities being 'happy' about their offspring choosing an interracial marriage, or those tasked by the future of the white race becoming nutzi net ninjas, their decisions are reached by mental algorithms that track social status of various kinds, not conscious logic.

In certain circumstances people can be converted, but only by someone who they respect. Just as no normal person will support a movement of hideous tattooed lumpens who look like an illustration of sacculinisation, they'll not listen to pseudonymous keyboard commandos. They (we) all have an implicit rule of thumb mandating we pay attention to those who seem trustworthy and accomplished. Our minds have that rule of thumb because it works, and works better than consciously evaluating the person's arguments. Assuming you have formulated a game-changing argument, you'll need to be someone, before those arguments will be listened to.'