PDA

View Full Version : Racism or Ethnoculture?



infoterror
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 03:06 AM
Racism or Ethnoculture?

The world might be simpler if people could articulate their actual impulses; however, since we justify ourselves to others through commonly agreed-upon values, and since saying exactly what you mean isn't always a trivial task, this is not so. Since it is hard to get a grasp on what is actually meant, and thus what is important to accomplish, most human activity consists of thrashing around trying to find that clear articulation which shows the path ahead.

A common condition where this occurs is the issue of race, which, not surprisingly, is a taboo subject in most liberal democracies (USA, Germany, UK) because if each vote is equal, and each person has the right to free enterprise and thus material success, it is important not to look at any qualifications outside of that when assessing them, or the entire system appears to be illusory - which it is. However, confusion afflicts the racial issue, in that whether from following media archetypes or overreacting emotionally to the situation, the "right" tends to affirm race by denigrating other races, and the "left" crusades against race by insisting all races are the same. Both positions are illusion.

The crux of this issue is the difference between "racism" and the belief that a population only exists if coherent in both culture and ethnicity; anthropologists and sociologists refer to this latter belief as "ethnoculturalism." An ethnoculture exists only when it has unbroken, unmixed lineage and upholds its culture in values, philosophies, art and traditions including the seemingly mundane but strikingly diverse ways one raises children, prepares food, establishes house and courtship rituals. "Racism," by contrast, is the preference of one race over all, and in our modern time conveys the stigma of bigotry as well, which is the belief that some races are inferior and others superior.

Why might it be antagonizing for a member of an ethnocultural group to see a member of another race living amongst the ethnoculture? The answer, if we set aside for a moment all the quarrelling over genetics and racial identifiers, is that to have a member of another ethnoculture present in your society is to dissolve it, ethnoculturally. People fall in love when young, before life's issues are fully clear, and often breed carelessly owing to teenage mistakes or drunken lonely moments. Once you breed in any detectable amount of another race, tribe or culture, your own ethnoculture is diluted, and rapidly falls apart. This does not imply that the mixed-in race is "inferior," only that much as two objects cannot occupy the same space, two ethnocultures cannot, without becoming a hybrid of the two, which destroys both original groups.

If we look honestly at our desires regarding race, it is not that we feel other groups are "inferior," but that we wish no other groups among our own, that motivates us. Our basic instinct is cultural preservation, and as each population is composed of ethnicity and culture, to see either of those items dissolved is to see failure on the horizon. There is nothing unreasonable about this. If you pick up any issue of National Geographic or an anthropological quarterly, you will see reference to any of a number of small tribes resisting the invasion of commerce, other cultures and foreign genetics. It is praised in those cultures, but not among "whites," and the reason is twofold: first, whites are not seen as having any culture, being themselves a mixture of Indo-European tribes; second, most who tackle the racial issue do so by trying to "prove" that other races are inferior, and thus not worthy of admixture.

Most "white" - "Indo-European" is a more accurate term - people are considerate, polite, and compassionate. They want nothing to do with what they see as "hate," because if they are of a healthy nature, they tend not to admit such things into their lives. For this reason, they steer clear of the bigotry, and while we can argue quite convincingly that thanks to postwar US and UK propaganda, they see National Socialism as a "hate" movement when it is not, the fact of the matter is that they are ignorant of this and would not know where to look to even find out the truth. Ultimately, this is a sensible move, because to justify ethnocultural separation in terms of hate is to miss the basic issue, and to be left thrashing around with defensive and reactionary justifications.

It is more assertive, and more honorable, for us to simply state the truth behind all of the rhetoric: we wish to preserve ourselves, even if in a mixed Indo-European population like that of the UK, Canada or USA. As Indo-Europeans, we have more in common than not, and while we seek to preserve also our distinct tribes (French, German, Finnish, Scots) we have an interest in our culture continuing through preservation of both our race and our traditions. This is not an unreasonable request, and does not need to be couched in some justification or emotional rhetoric, but needs people to speak up politely and reasonably about it. For the right to achieve its racial aims, it must be honest with itself and focus on this as its task. Any who cannot see why this is important are already without culture, and probably would be happier in the mixed-race republics of the Middle East.

Since we are already looking at the motivations behind the stated objectives of the right, let us look at the left. The left is opposed to any kind of racial distinction, as it argues that to recognize race is to rank some as inferior. Some have remarked that the complement of hate is paranoia, and surely this leftist attitude is paranoid; what would be wrong, for example, if Germans decided to remain an ethnoculture? There are plenty of places on earth left for those of mixed race, but to admit them into Germany is to destroy Germans - thus, for the purposes of Germans, any race but German as inappropriate. This attitude is tolerated by the left if it comes from any group but a white one. When we look at the overall tendency of the left, the reason for this subterfuge becomes clear.

As an extension of the liberalizing tradition that has now been dominant in the West for two millennia, the left represents egalitarianism, which is a utilitarian belief which states that, if all people are considered equals, there will be no inequity and thus needless suffering may be avoided. This belief is designed to please everyone in society, for who feels more "individualistic" than someone who believes the individual is beyond character assessment, and can only be judged in the sterile aspects of monetary success and social importance? The left feels it can liberate this spirit further through obliterating race, but this reveals a dark side of egalitarianism: to feel that everyone should be equal is to hate those that rise above the common standard, and wish revenge upon them. Such is the reason for the left crusading against racism; they feel that those who have unique race are in possession of something inaccessible to the largest portion of society, and therefore that privilege should be destroyed so that in "equality" we are all gifted with the same lot in life.

Naturally, the left is unaware of the larger picture of history, as they tend to see such things as falsified by the powerful. There is some truth to that, in that the victors write history, and thus National Socialism is demonized and the contributions of ancient Indo-Europeans hidden by the conquering utilitarian religions and social movements that came after (translation: the left is no exception when it comes to editing history to suit their own purposes). However, history as a whole is not a single narrative, but a comparison between sources by the individual, and if one looks carefully at the paths of ancient civilizations, it is clear that all of them followed a three-step path to failure:

1. Lose consensus as to goal, usually because the biggest enemies or natural threats were conquered;
2. Adopt a liberal worldview, and equalize the masses to that of your rulers;
3. Become a cosmopolitan, commerce-driven society, and thus obliterate your ethnic stock and thus, your culture.

To strip aside pretense and illusion in this way seems unfair to the left, but keep in mind that the previous five paragraphs were aimed at debunking similar illusion on the part of the right. Our partisanship should come secondary to fixing our human civilization here on earth, both at the level of whole and that of individual tribes and races; as we grow exponentially out of control and consume everything in our path, leaving behind an earthcrust of concrete and a trail of rubbish, we come nearer to our own death and nearer to the loss of something that, like an ethnoculture, should need no justification to be protected: our natural environment. Only by fixing our illusory social values can we achieve an end to this spiralling oblivion, and one issue of this is race, which is why it is doubly important to break with past failures and say what we mean: we are ethnoculturalists, not racists, and we intend cultural and racial revival.

http://www.nazi.org/nazi/policy/racism/

Lidvick
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 04:46 AM
:) It is all about preservation of one's race and it is that simple.

We are all trying to preserve our own ethnic roots and heritage, call it racism or ethnoculture.

It is very hypocritical that other races and even race traitors would look at the white preservation groups in such arrogance and stupidity of not knowing nor understanding.

Every race non-white I see everyday or ever read about preserve their roots and heritage and yet when the white race , does this and when obstacles such as opposing forces disaproves of us , it is only natural for us to show hate and anger.

There are too many groups that oppose such the notion of white unity and strength , and there is some on our part that with anger and hate may go too far.

There is sometimes violence and acts of destruction by those who know the anger and know the suffering of our cause ,that see the harsh bitterness upon the white race.

I sympathize , does not a female lion go on a blood thirsty rampage when someone messes with her cub?

It is the same of race , in my opinion.

There are those who believe that war or destruction means is the only key to the cause of liberation of the white race.

I personally am at odds with myself for I truly believe diplomacy is the best policy before one begins to think of picking up the sword and shield , however at the same time I see talking and fighting through peace and words also so called diplomacy and see it is not effective in today's world.

It has left me bewildered to what sort of action our race must take.



Some believe in superiority I however don't I believe every race exist on some lines for a reason because that is what creation of the whole earth existence has made.

I truly would like equality to exist I do not think that many of us like having to keep fighting for our heritage and race all the time. I believe that all of us would like to stop fighting if true equality existed so that we may just live our lives , in peace.

Then again I do not even know if true equality even exist.

For now all one can do is fight for their race and heritage and hope that someday such circumstances of freedom will come.

I hope the white race someday is free from the burdens and wicked influences of the many races of this day.:)

Spartacus74
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 02:07 PM
:) It is all about preservation of one's race and it is that simple.

We are all trying to preserve our own ethnic roots and heritage, call it racism or ethnoculture.

It is very hypocritical that other races and even race traitors would look at the white preservation groups in such arrogance and stupidity of not knowing nor understanding.
I hope the white race someday is free from the burdens and wicked influences of the many races of this day.:)
I'm quite agreeing with you, but i don't consider myself as simple racism, maybe as a Morphologic racism, a notion which includes the Spiritual racism.

There is an exception, if a member of a different race of mine is spiritually determinated and developed i can consider him better of my own race member who is in degeneration course.

But as a whole topic i'm conservationist about my folk, beginnig with my cultural and ethnical heritage including, with concentrical circles, different nationals caming however from the european Indoarian ethno root.

Huzar
Thursday, February 10th, 2005, 02:40 PM
Racism and ethnoculture are two words, but could be only one. Are two sides of the same medal. What we call ethnoculturalism, is called "racism", by our opponents. I dislike the word racism, like many others probably, because it's substantially a wrong term : means superiority and i don't feel myself superior to any other. But i must admit the word ethnoculturalism, containig a little percentage of racism. Even in this possibility, afterall, i think it's a necessary evil(unfortunately).

Lidvick
Friday, February 11th, 2005, 12:03 AM
:) I enjoyed both of your comments and I agree in some ways. It is a very controversial subject for a very important aspect of life.