Liberal Race Realism

Robert Lindsay is still trying to bake his political cake out of incompatible ingredients: a dash of race realism, positive white racial identity, the leftist view of American history, anti-racism, and a base of liberalism. Needless to say, this unusual combination is almost never found on sale. His brand of race realism rules out about “95% of the pro-White crowd.” It’s probably more than that, really.

Which is odd. Lindsay has attracted many racialist readers (myself included) with his incisive observations. His blog entries have been featured on Amren. He is very fascinated with the pro-white scene and writes about it quite regularly. We agree on many points and matters of fact, but tend to draw different conclusions. I don’t sense any duplicity in his writings that wafts off the likes of Lawrence Auster (Jew) or Ian Jobling.

In this post, Lindsay again talks about his anecdotal experience with the liberal stratum of White Californians and reiterates his often stated view that White Nationalism is simply impossible in America. I don’t believe his sweeping conclusions are warranted by the sample size he is using.

Here in the South, I find most people around my age to be either “casual racists” or otherwise receptive to racialism. These people have never heard of White Nationalism. They tend to be uninterested in politics. Most are thinly Protestant Christians (rarely attend church). None are haunted by any sense of guilt over the Holocaust, Jim Crow, slavery, extermination of the Indians, oppression of women, etc. Most hold at least negative views about negroes, illegal immigration, and affirmative action.

There is no organization on the ground trying to recruit them to White Nationalism. Instead, the movement is bottled up in cyberspace. Perhaps it will remain there indefinitely. Maybe that will change.

I would wager that White Nationalism has a better chance of breaking out into the mainstream (in the South) than Lindsay’s version of race realism. These days liberalism and racialism are mutually exclusive. Racialists don’t have much use for the Left and tend to jettison its neurotic obsessions with racism, feminism, homophobia, political correctness, all its talk about “freedom” and “equality,” and so on. Liberals don’t have any use for white racial consciousness (except in the negative sense), immigration restriction, opposition to affirmative action and multiculturalism, or any of ideas that animate White Nationalists.

After 1965, there is no longer any middle ground between the two. Whether it be neocon race realism (Jobling) or liberal race realism (Lindsay), I don’t see much of an audience for a third way.

28 Comments

  1. Robert said: “They are full blooded Japanese bu the other Japs don’t accept them because they’ve been in Brazil for 100 years.”

    Nikkeis from Brazil are not “full-blooded Japanese”, Robert. You are just talking straight out of your hat.

    From good, ol’ Wikipedia:

    “Nowadays, among the 1.4 million Brazilians of Japanese descent, 28% have some non-Japanese ancestry. This number reaches only 6% among children of Japanese immigrants, but 61% among great-grandchildren of Japanese immigrants.”

    (Make sure to have a look at that Wiki entry for the very interesting chart there and links to the reference sources.)

    Of the Nikkeis being asked to leave Japan, an awful lot of them don’t look full-blooded Japanese to me.

    I think you don’t know what you’re talking about in this case, Robert.

  2. I repeat, in Marxist terms, “Whites” are not a nation. Now there are subgroups of Whites in Europe who are nations, French, Germans, Slovenians, Poles, Hungarians, Czechs, Swedes. Most have nations but some do not. White nations without states include Jutes, Frisians, Flemish, Walloons, Occitans, Romansch, Friulians, Catalans, Sorbs, Galicians, Asturians, Basques, Aragonese, Bretons. In Italy, Germans, Albanians, Greeks and Occitans are nations.

    You guys really need to study the Marxist definition of a nation before we can continue this conversation.

    That’s a core issue of anti-Zionism. The Jews are a religion, and religions don’t get their own states. 7th Day Adventists don’t get a state because they are not a nation.

    C’mon guys, secessionism is a tough enough sell as it is, and almost all secessionist movements fail because every state on Earth opposes them. Most have to take up arms at some point or another. That’s even within this limited definition we Marxists have. If even legitimate nations like the above can’t get states, why should states grant nations to utterly illegitimate and fanciful nations like “7th Day Adventists” and some nebulous, laughable entity called “Whites?” Ain’t gonna happen.

  3. Robert said: “These are people who won’t even accept their own race – Barakumin [sic], and whose racial thinking makes no sense, like most racially obsessed cultures.”

    It doesn’t make sense to you, Robert, because you (apparently) don’t understand (perhaps have never thought much about) genetics and relatedness.

    The majority Japanese don’t accept the Burakumin because they are a minority group that has been genetically isolated from the majority for several hundreds of years. Because the majority and minority have not interbred (to any great extent) for several hundreds of years, they have become two separate groups, genetically speaking. They are not as different from one another as, say, a Japanese person and an Australian Aborigine; but they are different enough that they have differing genetic interests. And different enough is what counts in biology.

    There are, I’m sure, thousands of “splinter” (for want of a better word) groups like this around the world. A similar European group that comes to my mind are the Irish Travellers. They’re genetically Irish, but have become a distinct genetic sub-group due to a few hundred years of inbreeding.

    Robert said: “The Japanese are about 60% Korean and 40% Ainu, yet they despise both the Koreans and the Ainu. Go figure.”

    This is not a question of “go figure”. Again, this is a question of you not understanding genetics and relatedness (and the importance of those in how groups of people relate to one another).

    Yes, the Japanese are descendants of peoples who came from mainland Asia via the Korean peninsula and from Ainu-like peoples, but we’re talking about something like 2500 years ago that the Yayoi (what you referred to as Korean) people settled in Japan. That’s plenty of time for the people of Japan to become genetically separated from the mainland Asian population (i.e. the two groups would’ve gone off in two different genetic directions) — never mind the fact that the Yayoi probably did interbreed to some extent with the “Ainus” who were already there, so that would also make the Japanese population different genetically from mainland Asians who did not interbreed with “Ainus”.

    ~~~~~

    Genetic relatedness is everything. How related we are to both 1) the members of our own group and 2) to the members of other groups predicts how altruistic (or not) we will be toward them. If a group is very inbred, it will be very hostile towards outgroups. If a group is too outbred (think Whites in America?), it’s likely that the members will not be very hostile towards outgroups.

    You (Robert) keep thinking about racial issues only in terms of race, but this is too narrow a view of relatedness to understand human behaviour towards other groups. The issue is not just one of race, it is relatedness. Genetic relatedness is hierarchical: one is most closely related to immediate family members (parents, siblings); then to extended family; then to something we could call a very broad extended family (could say tribe, for example); then to one’s ethnic group; then to one’s racial group; then to one’s species; then to one’s genus, and so on. (There are, no doubt, more levels of groups of relatedness that could be fit into this hierarchy; I’m just naming a few by way of example.)

    We’re mostly likely to be most altruistic to immediate family members — [but there is *also* competition there (think sibling rivalry)] — then to our extended family, and so on. One shouldn’t just think in terms of race and race relations — one has to think of all the levels of relatedness when it comes to understanding cooperation and competition between groups. Once you get this, the majority Japanese behaviour towards the Burakumin is then understandable.

    The embarrassing thing is that most peoples in the world still seems to instinctively understand all this (although not, presumably, about the specifics of the genetics involved). It’s Westerners who seem to have developed a collective amnesia about all this (is that because we are too outbred?). As the Pashtun say: “Me against my brother, my brother and me against my cousins, we and our cousins against the enemy.”

  4. Robert said: “You guys really need to study the Marxist definition of a nation before we can continue this conversation.”

    Marxism is bunk.

    (Because it doesn’t take into account biology.)

  5. “Stalin’s theory on the National Question held that a group could only be a nation if it had a territory, and since there was no Jewish territory, per se, the Jews were not a nation and did not have national rights. Jewish Communists argued that the way to solve this ideological dilemma was to create a Jewish territory, hence the ideological motivation for the Jewish Autonomous Oblast.

    According to Joseph Stalin’s national policy, each of the national groups that formed the Soviet Union would receive a territory in which to pursue cultural autonomy in a socialist framework.”

    American whites have a nation. It’s called the USA. Alternatively, using Stalin’s national policy, each of the national groups that form the USA would receive a territory in which to pursue cultural autonomy. It could be a White Autonomous Oblast.

  6. “This raises a point: what is the endgame of anti-Zionism? The Left seems to want Israel to become a multicultural paradise, like Brazil. Why should I want this?”

    Gee Monty, why do you, of all people, suddenly seem to care for the world’s largest open air prison, when you DONT GIVE A HOOT ABOUT THE BIOLOGICAL CONTINUITY OF ‘YOUR OWN’ PEOPLE???????????

  7. Robert,
    You’re wrong. The workers being paid to leave are only part Japanese and judging by the pictures look more Latin American than Japanese.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/business/global/23immigrant.html

    The various European ethnics in America have coalesced as whites. If and when hostilities break out Americans of Italian, German, English, Polish and Danish descent will rally together as one group.

    I won’t waste my time listing examples of interracial strife around the world since you just don’t seem to get it. Furthermore, I’m glad you came out of the closet and admitted to being a Marxist. You deserve a medal since you’re someone who still admits to adhering to such a widely discredited ideology. Marxism has failed everywhere it’s been tried but go one and keep reading Lenin if it gives you solace. Maybe you’re fantasizing about creating an American NKVD to murder people who oppose multiracialism.

  8. Ain’t gonna happen.

    I’m sure they said something similar before the Bolsheviks took over. Then I’m pretty sure they said something similar before the Bolsheviks went over the cliff. And before American independence. And before the WBtS.

    I bet slavers loved telling that one to the slaves (well, okay, the slaves never did do anything to free themselves but you know what I mean 🙂 ).

  9. Lots of the stuff that’s going on today was “never gonna happen,” and wouldn’t have but for letting the turds on the left have power.

  10. If you want to know why I hate fascists so much, a certain amount of my ideology comes from a German Communist. Those German Communists really, really, really hate the Far Right over there. The fascists in Germany are essentially all neo-Nazis. My comrades used to go out and fight those people in the street. So we really do regard them as the enemy.

    Plus I can never forget what the Nazis did in WW2. They killed 27 million of my comrades in the USSR and many more all over Europe. Every time fascists get in power, the first thing they do is go after people like us. I mean, c’mon, these are my deadliest enemies.

    I would distinguish between two types of nationalism. A nationalism of national liberation is one that we support. That can even be ethnic. For instance, I support the right of the Palestinians, West Papuans, Uighurs, Tibetans, etc. to self-determination in their lands. Theirs is a nationalism is national liberation.

    These people are fighting against settler-colonialism. Settler-colonialism is objectively fascist, a national consolidation type of nationalism that is based in severe repression of minorities.

    In the cases above, the fascist-national consolidationist nationalism is that of the Israeli Jews, the Indonesian state, the Chinese government and the Han, etc.

    White nationalism of a fascist-national consolidationist type of course must be opposed.

    But suppose White nationalism could be a movement of national liberation? If it could, we Marxists would have to support it. The problem is that “Whites” are not exactly a nation in the same way as West Papuans, Uighurs, Tibetans, Palestinians, etc. OTOH, if there was an area where Whites lived or were the majority and those Whites wanted to keep it that way, we would support that.

    Any White state, or any state, has a right to set up immigration policies any way they wish. Immigration policies can never be racist. Immigration is like your house. I don’t have to let anyone in here. If Uighurs or Tibetans only want to let other Uighurs or Tibetans move to their area, that is their right. If a White country says only Whites can move here, we support that.

  11. “Plus I can never forget what the Nazis did in WW2. They killed 27 million of my comrades in the USSR and many more all over Europe. Every time fascists get in power, the first thing they do is go after people like us. I mean, c’mon, these are my deadliest enemies.”
    __
    For one thing, plenty of the killing of ‘your comrades(??!?)’ was done by the soviet swine hierarchy itself, and not just by stalin, since this jewish puppet had PLENTY of henchmen!

    “Stalin’s Jews”
    http://www.ynet.co.il/english/articles/0,7340,L-3342999,00.html

    “Stalin’s Willing Executioners”
    http://www.vdare.com/misc/051105_macdonald_stalin.htm

    And your last silly sentence would historically more accurately read –
    “Every time [Bolshevik Marxists] get in power, the first thing they do is go after people like US. I mean, c’mon, these are [OUR] deadliest enemies.”

    Yeah, the ‘Fascists’ went after the Commies’ since the Bolshies had a track record since 1917 of being the most sublime, murderous psychopaths –

    “MURDER BY COMMUNISM”
    http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

    Yup, Kulaks NEVER LEARN INDEED!
    __

    Oh, and Robert, please stop playing the ‘Nazi card’. We all know just how ‘wonderful’, ‘moral’ and (self) ‘righteous’ you and your ‘comrades’ really are;-(!

    “Reductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, or reductio (or argumentum) ad Nazium – dog Latin for “reduction (or argument) to Adolf Hitler (or the Nazis)” – is a modern formal fallacy in logic.

    “The name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum, or especially its related argumentum ad misericordiam.

    “It is a variety of both questionable cause and association fallacy and has the effect of an appeal to emotion.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

    On top of it all, it doesn’t matter one wit to the jewish commissars that you, Guy White, or any other ‘goy’ brandishes it ad hominum, ad nauseum… for you are still Amalek in their eyes.

    Try getting a little more creative with your debate than resorting to overused, and tired, judeo-bolshevist propaganda and psychobabble! Especially someone like yourself who is as intelligent and as fair-minded as you usually are.

  12. If it weren’t for settler-colonialism, the United States would not exist.

    I know, but we still say it was wrong, and retrospectively, I support the American Indians for heroically defending their lands against the White settler-colonial imperialist invaders. Defending the homeland against the invaders of all types is the sort of nationalism that is progressive and that everyone should rally around.

    Not only that, but it is acceptable for the nationalists defending their homelands to kill the settler-colonial fascist invaders and colonists.

    So it was right and proper for Amerindians to kill White adult settlers, for Uighurs and Tibetans to presently to kill Han adult settlers, for Palestinians to kill Jewish adult settlers, for Sarahwi to kill Moroccan adult settlers, on and on. I leave child settlers off the target list since they don’t have the ability to leave and go home. In this framework, settlers are not “innocent civilians” at all.

    The Algerian revolutionaries (I get a lot of my ideology from Frantz Fanon) targeted the pied noir settler-colonialists, and most of them fled.

    This ideology would even be compatible with White nationalism, if White nations were being invaded, or if a fascist state was settling non-Whites in White territories against the wishes of the natives. I don’t see where this is happening though.

  13. “The Algerian revolutionaries (I get a lot of my ideology from Frantz Fanon)”

    You would!

    “Not only that, but it is acceptable for the nationalists defending their homelands to kill the settler-colonial fascist invaders and colonists.”

    How ’bout these ‘settlers’, Red Rob?

    “Ethnic Cleansing and Soviet Crimes Against Humanity”
    http://vip.latnet.lv/LPRA/ethnic_cleansing.htm
    *
    “Socialist racism: Ethnic cleansing and racial exclusion in the USSR and Israel”
    Abstract
    During the 1970s, both the Crimean Tatars and Meskhetian Turks in Soviet Central Asia compared their plight to that of the Palestinians. The Stalin regime deported both the Crimean Tatars and Meskhetian Turks from their homelands to dispersed settlements in Central Asia. The similarities between the Soviet policies of expelling and permanently excluding the Crimean Tatars and Meskhetian Turks from their homelands and similar Israeli policies towards the Palestinians are not entirely coincidental. The Zionists based their mass expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 and subsequent prohibition on allowing them to return to their homes in part on the Soviet model. The similarities between the two instances of ethnic cleansing are due in large part to this conscious emulation of Stalin’s methods by the Zionists.
    http://www.springerlink.com/content/4uu0nk0m6c3826cd/
    __

    Oh and this time try answering the question, instead of giving us the usual agitprop, self-righteous speech.

  14. Progressives are just pissing away their inheritance. This state of affairs won’t go on forever. Eventually, we will reach the tipping point when white liberal progressives have been replaced by ethnocentric non-whites.

  15. The Crimean Tatars collaborated en masse with the Fascist Enemy who invaded the USSR. Hence, they were deported to Central Asia as traitors. Many died in the process. They should be allowed to return to their native lands.

    The link is not correct. Stalin did not deliberately kill 13-15 million people. It is true that he killed 2.5 million people deliberately during peacetime. This does not include deaths during WW2, which are hard to calculate. The author has a German last name and appears to be either a Nazi or a pro-Nazi.

  16. Anyway, the Crimean Tatars were eventually allowed to return to their homelands in 1989, so the argument is moot. Stalin committed many fascist-type crimes and engaged in many fascist behaviors. So did the early Bolsheviks. So did Mao. It’s a real problem. Internationalism is mostly theoretical.

    When it comes down to brass tacks, many socialist states have behaved like national consolidationist fascists. National consolidationalist fascism is really just the typical response of any state to secessionism. It’s part and parcel of statism. I don’t have all the answers. No one’s perfect.

  17. “Anyway, the Crimean Tatars were eventually allowed to return to their homelands in 1989, so the argument is moot.”

    Of course, just forget all the maimed and dead ones, (and all those broken families) with many dying on one of those unheated Stolypin “cattle (goyim) cars” in transit to Magadansk and Kolyma; in other words, victims of the worlds largest concentration camp system! AND it was way more nationalities involved than just Tatars, and even before the war with National Socialist Germany.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_transfer_in_the_Soviet_Union

    “Stalin committed many fascist-type crimes and engaged in many fascist behaviors. So did the early Bolsheviks. So did Mao.”

    Yes, they indeed engage in ‘crimes’ (to put it so mildly) but no, don’t be mendacious here! Stalin, Mao, Lenin and, most ESPECIALLY, the Khazar Trotsky did not behave like “Fascists”–they behaved like the marxist psychopaths that they ACTUALLY were!
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Book_of_Communism

    Marxism means mass murder, always. No sane individual buys the ‘pilot error’ schtick over the ‘fundamental design of the plane’ poppycock argument!
    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/06/03/chinas_socialist_road_to_misery/

    “It’s part and parcel of statism. I don’t have all the answers. No one’s perfect.”

    Exactly Robert, it is all part and parcel of ‘human’ nature. What is so hypocritically sickening about the far-left is that they think that they can play God, and just ‘will’ and ‘wish’ away unpleasant facts and truths from the rest of humanity. Like you said, “Internationalism is mostly theoretical.”

    I used to think that at least a plurality of Leftists were sincere in their purported desire to ‘help’ humanity, especially since I was once more Liberal myself–and now I fully know crystal clear it is really ALL ABOUT POWER!

    Who?, Whom?–as the sadist “Lenin” said.

    So whether it is a single state system, or the Marxist/Internationalist ‘wet dream’ on steroids, a ‘world state’–it will always be JUST THAT, a “State” of some sort ‘oppressing’ someone, since power, by its inherent definition, is not something easily or readily shared–unless it is in a homogeneous society–something that the far-Left works overtime in their satanic obsession looking to weaken, overthrow and destroy.

    All in the service of Mammon and Babylon–and its spiritual antecedents, the Babylonian Talmud!

    KULAKS NEVER LEARN INDEED!

  18. “Liberal Race Realism” was America’s dominant political philosophy from the 30s-60s when it ended a Depression brought on by the excesses of the finance community, defended the world from totalitarianism, developed an economy that supported family values, and improved protection from frictional economic disruption, like job loss and retirement. Then they screwed it up with racial fantasies.

    If you take any conservative accusation against liberalism, like failed public schools or crime, you will find the problem is race differences. Liberalism can work if you assume people will try to support American values, but not if liberal help becomes a lifestyle.

    My “Aha” moment was the film Bowling for Columbine, in which Michael Moore asks why America’s homicide rate is three times Canada’s even though our cultures are nearly identical. Then he spends five minutes explaining why it’s not due to our black population. Unfortunately, it IS due to the black population, without which our murder rate is about the same as Canada’s. That when it hit me that race denial is MODERN liberalism’s highest value and so they require an entire culture of prohibiting free speech because it’s so easy to disprove.

  19. Jesus Christ man! Is it really true that our homicide rate is the same as Canada’s if only we subtract Blacks from the US equation? Incredible! Can you support that with a link or some figures. Thx!

  20. Ok, I wrote a little fast. I should have said the US rate minus blacks and Hispanics about equals Canada’s. Here’s a Wiki link that Canada’s rate is 1.9/100k:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada
    Here’s the US Bureau of Justice statistics that the overall white rate is 3.5/100k:
    http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/oracetab.htm
    But that includes Hispanics as whites. The Hispanic rate is about four times that of NH whites, and they’re about 17% of the white population, so 3.5/(.83+4*.17) = 2.3.

    That’s a little higher than Canada’s 2.3 : 1.9, but well ballpark.
    I bet if you threw out the South, it would be nearly identical.

  21. We must take pride in our white race, the most successful race to ever grace the great country of the United States of America. Showing pride and ownership in our race has been programmed out of modern culture and we are taught to be ashamed of our history. We must regain our pride and ownership.

    http://www.racerealism.com

  22. To me it’s more about acceptance of what you are rather than pride as you can’t really be proud of your race since you had no control over it at birth but at the same time you shouldn’t be ashamed of your race either but rather just accept it and the true white nationalism will take place in European countries and perhaps Canada too but not really here in the USA as it’s more strange here.

    However as a token reward there can be real equality in the USA like an end to affirmative action and an end to the anti-white brainwashing known as sensitivity/diversity training,your right to live among your own and an end to illegal immigration.Does that sound pretty good.Check out http://american3p.org

4 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. Liberal Race Realism Starting to Grow « Robert Lindsay
  2. Diversity is rape replacement « Old Atlantic Lighthouse
  3. In Praise of Hunter Wallace | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay
  4. Liberal Race Realism, Precursor to the Alt Left | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay

Comments are closed.