Category: White identity

Sallis vs. Sailer on the Census

Sailer’s HBDite stupidity.

Those who read Sailer often see his “Flight from White” ramblings about the US Census.  Steverino is opposed to Middle Eastern North African (MENA) being a separate category from “White” – he wants the MENA folks lumped in with Euro-Americans.  He has also criticized the fact that South Asians have already been removed from the “White” category due to South Asian ethnic lobbying (similarly, the MENA crowd are actively lobbying for the same).  Sailer notes that these groups in the past wanted to be counted as “White,” but now that Whites are a subaltern “untouchable” group in today’s Jewish-Colored Supremacist America, the NECs want to flee as fast away from “White” as possible.”

However, the point has to be: what is best for America and more specifically what is best for Whites – Euro-Americans?  I do not remember Sailer ever clearly stating (at least at VDARE – I don’t care about the Unz site) why having NECs counted as White is something desirable.  Trying to parse Sailer’s “writings” I conclude that he believes that if MENAs and South Asians are “binned” as “White” then they will (be forced to) identify politically with Whites and White interests, reinforcing the power of the majority and its interests.  The fact that these groups were (South Asians) or are (MENAs) grouped with Whites and certainly reject any sort of “White” identity, political or otherwise, somehow escapes Sailer.  That the Jews have always been politically counted as “White” and have been the greatest enemy White Americans have ever had also escapes Sailer’s HBD brilliance.

Sailer confuses cause and effect.  He apparently believes that how people are categorized in the census affects how they consider themselves in a racial-social sense.  This is clearly not the case.  Instead, the reality is that how people consider themselves in the racial-social sense determines how they want to be categorized in the census.  There’s also crypsis involved: while Jews do not consider themselves “White” in the same sense Euro-Americans do, Jews also have an instinctive urge for crypsis, to want to hide their alieness, made easier for most Ashkenazi since the typical mind-benumbed White gentile cannot identify obvious Jews (but usually can identify gentile Middle Easterners, South Asians, etc.).  So, for the most part, Jews are content to be legally “White” despite not really considering themselves so; on the other hand, (non-Jewish) MENAs and South Asians have no desire for crypsis and for the most have part no chance of being successful at crypsis even if they were so inclined.

So, Sailer’s wrong-headed ramblings on this subject are his typical “look how clever I am posturing” in which he usually ends up looking like a pompous idiot (in other words, an HBDer).

There are real costs to Sailer’s agenda here, costs for Whites.  Binning MENAs (including Jews by the way) as “White,” never mind doing the same for South Asians, obfuscates, masks, and hides the degree of real demographic change, artificially inflates White numbers, and dampens down something that any White racialist (as opposed to an anti-White HBDer) wants to see occur: a strong White reaction against demographic displacement.  Here Sailer is on the same page as the System, as the Left, which wants to calm White fears, promote an “anyone can become White” storyline, and postpone White political reaction to race replacement reality.

We need to know the real demographic facts on the ground, no matter how harsh, instead of indulging in deadly fantasies that say that if a previously White town becomes transformed into a holding pen for Syrian refugees, then no demographic change has taken place.

Euro-Americans should have their own category.  Indeed, we should drill down even deeper.  Even with intra-White mating blurring ethnic boundaries, it would still be useful to know how many White Americans identify as various ethnic groups, etc.  Knowledge is good, as they say.  And contra Sailer, asking people if they identify as German-American is not going to lead to a revival of the Bund.  

Short summary: observe what it is that the HBDers recommend and support the opposite.

Advertisements

An Interesting Counter-Currents Comment

On White Identity:


I am inclined to agree with Jonathan Bowden and others: white identity has to be given and must claim an upper edge and must be seen as an advantage, as more robust and meaningful than merely holding to a classical segregationist argument (my impression of Taylor). A segregationist’s mentality is crucial, no doubt, but the real power in white identity is our link with Europe’s intellectual and cultural projects and achievements. It is part of the tragedy we are facing that fewer and fewer can define value in this way.


All true, but there also must be the underlying biological/EGI component as well.  But, yes, actualizing a High Culture, as Yockey would say, is one foremost forward-looking identity-building project.

European Ingroup

Answering anti-White trolls.

I note that certain concern trolls are starting their usual song-and-dance on certain blogs. In response, I’d like to make a few comments.
One can say this about a European ingroup: Europeans form a broad continental population group with respect to genetics/biology andthey share a core civilizational history/High Culture.
That “and” is crucial; it is not one or the other in isolation, but both aspects of Identity in combination.
Let us consider the history of the EU. Let us put aside the fact that the EU as it exists today is a viciously destructive anti-White tool of Right and Left Globalists. Instead, let us consider the idea of a European Union, and how EU membership is viewed by the masses.
As regards the various diverse nations of Western Europe (e.g., UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Ireland, etc. – all the nations Yockey considered “the West”) there was never any racial or cultural concerns about including any of these nations. The only concerns were economic (e.g., underperforming “PIGS” countries) and political (grumbling about sovereignty and “diktats from Brussels”). 
With respect to expansion into Eastern Europe, apart from concerns about Roma and Muslim groups, there also were no racial or cultural concerns – the problems were economic (the idea that large numbers of Eastern European migrants would flood Western European countries and take jobs) and political (corruption, etc.). Concerns about Slavs, Hungarians, and Romanians were never essentially (or existentially) racial or cultural, and the legitimate concerns about economic migrants could be dealt with by ending the idea that EU citizens can freely travel between nations (a stupid idea to begin with).
In contrast, when potential expansion moved outside of Europe – Turkey being a major example (but even North Africans and other NECs have been mentioned) – then even mainstream politicians and the general population began strongly objecting, with racial and cultural undertones to arguments about “the death of Europe” and “the end of European civilization” and “they’re Asian (or African) and not European.”  Even the general population implicitly understands the line dividing Europe and non-Europe.  Even the mainstream implicitly understands the foundation of a European ingroup.