White Nationalists and Alt-Right continuously talk about the preservation of the White race, White Genocide and all that, but I’m still not quite sure what they mean when they say White. As a rough generalization I can understand that the White people refers to people of European descent, yet the various European peoples do not constitute a homogenous group.
I’ve already written about White Nationalism and the White Genocide previously, and I don’t want to repeat everything here, but suffice to say I find the word White when referring to race as ambiguous at best.
The talk of us as White people reminds me of something said in the movie “Malcom X”, which recounted the exploits of the African-American activist. When Malcolm X was in prison he met another Black man who told him to look at what the dictionary says about the words “black” and “white”. I don’t remember the exact definitions stated in the movie, but the Merriam-Webster dictionary gives definitions such as “thoroughly sinister or evil”, “marked by the occurrence of disaster” and “characterized by hostility or angry discontent”, i.e. the word has negative connotations. White on the other hand is associated with light, purity and positive things. This, according to the character in Malcolm X, affects the self-image of Black people negatively. I agree.
Let’s look at the word “white” then. What connotations does that word have? These are some of the definitions mentioned in Merriam-Webster: “free from color”, “being a member of a group or race characterized by light pigmentation of the skin”, “marked by upright fairness”, “free from spot or blemish: as . . . free from moral impurity” and “not intended to cause harm”. I certainly see the attitude in the Alt Right that White people are inherently more moral or pure compared to other races, or as Common Filth criticizes the attitude “it’s alright as long as White people are doing it”. No person nor race is inherently moral, instead moral behaviour is something each individual must strive to maintain.
What I find most intriguing definition is the first one: free from color, i.e. colorless. The dictionary elaborates on “colorless” by these attributes: “dull or boring : not interesting”. First of all, I see this attitude in especially all of the White women who are obsessed with dating African or Arabic men, since White people, i.e. the woman herself and men of her race, are so dull, so she has to have some color in her life. Moreover, this definition of us as being colorless is like saying we are a Tabula Rasa, a blank slate. We have no identity, no history, but you’re welcome to draw or write anything on us and we will become that. Both the far left and the far right are guilty of this. The Cultural Marxists and Social Justice Warriors focus on the negative sides of our history and paint a picture of cruelty and bloodshed, whereas the Alt Right chooses to fill the slate with Roman high culture.
Both views are cherry-picked instances of Western history and culture. It’s predicated on the idea that we are a White Tabula Rasa where anything goes. But this is not true. There is no White race. There are various different White nations.
No White race, but White nations
The English, for example, have many significant cultural accomplishments such as Shakespeare, John Milton, William Blake and Monty Python. The Germans and Greeks have several important philosophers. But we Finns don’t really anything comparable to those. It would just seem odd for me as a Finnish man to brag about my heritage as a White man for something an Englishman has done. We are not the same people. And although Finns lack many of the accomplishments of other European peoples I can take pride in the fact that we lack many of the negative aspects of those Europeans. We didn’t conquer half of the world by imperialism, and although the British empire had positive aspects to it, overall I think it’s one of the worst things that has happened in the world. Nor has Finland ever been as decadent as the Weimar republic was, or modern Germany is. Nor has Finland fallen from the height of European culture that Greece was over 2000 years to the 3rd world country it is now.
Although as this rough generalization I can describe myself as White and compare myself to other Europeans, yet it would be nonsensical to say that the different cultures and histories of Europe form a homogenous collective.
Even Adolf Hitler believed in the superiority of the Germanic “Aryans”. He was not there to uplift the White man, but the Germanic man. He considered Slavs to be subhuman, although nowadays the Anglo-Saxon White Nationalists seem to consider Slavs as part of their race. Hitler was not only proven wrong about his theories about the superiority of the Germanic man by failing to conquer Russia, and nowadays when you compare the Slavic eastern Europe to western and northern Germanic Europe, the Slavs come off as having enough common sense to take care of their own people, whereas Germans and Swedes only care about the rights of the “rapefugees” and the LGBT community.
What is the White race?
My question stands: what is the White race? What do the White Nationalists and Alt Right mean when they want to conserve their blessed White man? I haven’t seen them define what they mean by it. Perhaps someone somewhere has offered a definition, but I haven’t seen it. This isn’t some minor detail I’m nit-picking on, but the most important part of their identity politics, yet they don’t define their terms.
Greg Johnson, in his article on the White Genocide, defines the meaning of the word “genocide”, but not what he means by the White race. In another he states that race is not a social construct, which I agree with. He also points out that different races have observable differences, even among seemingly similar races such as Australian aborigines and Africans. Later on Johnson suggests there are five distinct races: “Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Congoid, Capoid, and Australoid”. The Caucasoid would be the White race then. If the Caucasoid are a single race, why do different ethnic groups within the alleged White/Caucasian race also bare physiological differences? The English, Italians, Finns and Russians are all part of the supposed White race, yet all of them have very different features. How are they all of the same race, yet observably different? I’ve heard Alt Right people mention on a few different occasion that Italians weren’t considered White a century or two ago. Why are they considered White now? Was there are racial shift, or is Whiteness just an arbitrary definition based on the whims and emotions of the speaker?
Wikipedia states that the United States Census Bureau defines White people as follows: “having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicated their race(s) as “White” or reported entries such as Irish, German, Italian, Lebanese, Arab, Moroccan, or Caucasian” and so is a wider group than European American.” According to this definition Arabs, Jews and Mexicans would be White. This isn’t what most Alt Right people believe, so this definition clearly does suffice to explain their definition of Whiteness. What is the fabled White race they are intent on protecting? I doubt even they know. The Alt Right aren’t Racial Realists, but Racial Idealists.
I see this recent push for international White Nationalism as just another attempt at replacing nationalism with internationalism or globalism. It has the same goal as Communism or Corpocratism. Only the method is different. If people fall for it, the result would be undermining national sovereignty and identity of each “White” nation in favour of some abstract unified cluster of various races that have some cultural ties to each other, although deep down they are different.
I have no problem with White Nationalists out there in America wanting to create a nation of their own in America, but I have problem with people who promote the agendas of the “small, rootless, international clique that is turning the people against each other, that does not want them to have peace. It is people who are at home both nowhere and everywhere, who do not have a soil where that have grown up, but who live in Berlin today, in Brussels tomorrow, in Paris the day after that, and then again in Prague, Vienna or London, and who feel at home everywhere. They are the only ones who can can be addressed as international elements, because they conduct their business everywhere.”
White Genocide by Greg Johnson: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/09/white-genocide/
Why Race is Not a “Social Construct”: http://www.counter-currents.com/2015/07/why-race-is-not-a-social-construct/
White Americans: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans
Stuff I’ve written previously:
White Nationalism: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2014/10/18/white-nationalism/
White Genocide: https://concordiaabchao.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/white-genocide/