← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Hugh Lincoln
Thread ID: 12382 | Posts: 2 | Started: 2004-02-17
2004-02-17 17:23 | User Profile
Zowza. The latest Occidental Quarterly has a lead article bound to get tongues a-waggin' in racialistville. It isn't a mere revisitation of the separatism v. supremacism debate, but puts separatism into context and knocks it slightly as "neo-con racialism," i.e., a form of racialism that kowtows to the universalist morality.
Here.
[url]http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no4/gc-twomodels.html[/url]
You know, it's like this. Separatists envision we'll all just pack up and move tomorrow to Whiteland and blacks et. al. will jauntily do same for Blackland, Jewland and Aztlan. Supremacists envision we'll wake up tomorrow and put "no coloreds" signs on the movie theater. Now, I'm not saying neither of these sound groovy to me, but in terms of selling it, or actually happening, well, let's think for a minute. The plug for separatism is that while it's just as improbable to occur tomorrow, you can at least talk about it with a straight face, even pitch it to the whole gang.
2004-02-17 20:32 | User Profile
Strange article. No point in focusing on errors like Tyndall leaving the NF to start the BNP in '80 or the point that Verwoerd was like all that promoted apartheid or white rule in Rhodesia wanted to create independent black countries which is why they say segregation was temporary and one small quote from all of nationalist Afrikaner thought is not enough to make any conclusion from.
I can however not let the establishment lie stand of Hitler wanting to destroy jewry as it is without support so for modern Hitler fans like Zundel to say why that is wrong is moral and correct to what his regime wanted. It should be say that from the start of the Old Republic till 1840s or so Occidentals as well as Congoids were slaves and that Occidentals that were not educated or owned property where often not able to vote so democracy in America was not the white supremacist golden era spoke of in the article. Mr. Caldwellââ¬â¢s position is not supported in those cases but a more crucial matter is at stake here.
A big problem is what does Mr. Caldwell propose as he seems to defend racial supremacy? A return to Jefferson era slavery for the poor of all races or just blacks? What about genocide as an option? If he wants those things how will he make them happen? These practical things are not mentioned but given his tone it seem he wants to return to his idealized view of the Jefferson era which is of course impossible given modern technology and population density if by some miracle Occidental Americans could be made to think it was a good idea to try that.
More basic is issue of supremacy instead of separation. The notion that Occidentals are better then other races so we are right to make them slaves and totally oppress them and even take their lands from them is not defendable.
In practical terms it is a bad idea because colonialism/slavery benefit plutocrats while hurting working class whites which creates class conflict and promotes social break down. To me, the bottom line is that slavery was bad for working class white people and social stability. American style slavery was dying before the War of North Aggression because of the rise of mechanization which means that in the long run something would need to done with the Congoid masses.
Another problem with slavery, colonialism and legalized racial oppression as long term social plan is that non-whites have always had much higher birth rates and poverty forces oppressed to have more births because that is the only means for poor parents to be looked after without some state run old age pension scheme. What this means is that a racial supremacist state is faced with a ever growing population that hates the establishment (often with good reason) so insurrection is always a possibility as it was in many colonial holdings in Africa and as it is now in East Timor and Palestine. Naturally, any foreign power wishing to destabilize a racial supremacist state need just back the dispossessed forcing the racial supremacist state to bankrupt itself fighting a counter insurgency war that will never end save genocide like what happened to the French in Haiti. I could give many examples of such but it is safe to say that the people here have enough history knowledge that it is not needed.
At the most basic level an Occidental racial supremacist state is very hard to maintain for moral reasons. When one part of humanity is openly oppressed because of accident of birth large segments of our people will be outraged at the cruelty and campaign against it. Because those against such obvious injustice have a simple, appealing argument hard it is to see how public opinion can not turn against a Occidental racial supremacist state without massive repression given modern communication technology. It is morally very hard to defend dehumanizing racial aliens which is why even Mr. Caldwell does not openly call for a return to racial supremacy.
It seem illogical to me to complain about how Occidentals are treated and how our cultures are being destroyed while defending such misery being forced on others. How can one condemn what jews do to Palestinians, what happens in East Timor or inter-tribal butchering if we promote our people doing such things to others? The only way such actions can be justified is if we promote the notion that our ability to oppress/dehumanize others is itââ¬â¢s own justification. Such a notion is basically nillistic and not in keeping with any form of social conservatism which is what we all should be about.
ââ¬ÅYou know, it's like this. Separatists envision we'll all just pack up and move tomorrow to Whiteland and blacks et. al. will jauntily do same for Blackland, Jewland and Aztlan.ââ¬Â
I admit that in America where real racialism does not exist in any organizational sense and almost no attention is given to meta-politics and ideology that is true. Such an ideal is silly but that parody of separatism should not be confused with the idea itself.
ââ¬ÅSupremacists envision we'll wake up tomorrow and put "no coloreds" signs on the movie theater. Now, I'm not saying neither of these sound groovy to me, but in terms of selling it, or actually happening, well, let's think for a minute. The plug for separatism is that while it's just as improbable to occur tomorrow, you can at least talk about it with a straight face, even pitch it to the whole gang.ââ¬Â
Obviously, Occidental racial supremacy is not defendable and never will appeal to very many sane people. If separatism is to be taken seriously in America then Americans that care about how their children will live need to start thinking seriously about what they want, why they want it and how to get it. The V.O. article on American racism was well received in several places, but not here, so perhaps something worth while will come but I am not optimistic.