Brining up race is an icky issue. It’s a categorization that leads into spiteful prejudice and discrimination. However, it is a biological, genetic reality, that presents us with the truth that we are no different from animals. In addition, people have racial pride, and see their own race as an identity politic that defines the entire culture they belong to, and as well belonging to a minor subculture that makes each individual unique. Race, culture, and subculture are hardly exchangeable, as the root of meaning originates in this top-bottom process. Race is controversial in that any biological culture could be considered an identity politic, and thus a culture. The Irish, French, German, Hungarian, and so on, could belong to an “Irish race,” “a French race,” “a German race,” but never would any of these cultural groups subjugate themselves belonging to one egalitarian model known as “the white race.” This is because the categorization of “white” is subcultural, rather than cultural.
Two definitions can arise around being White. First, it can be described as “a race of admixture European people, and any other European race that can assimilate to those values.” Or second, the modern world has described White as “the subculture of admixture European people and its hostility against cosmopolitan and egalitarian ideologies.” While the former describes a concrete race of admixture European people with an identity politic, the latter negates “the white race” as nothing more than a subculture or inauthentic identity that ignores the reality of actual racial groups like Irish, French, German, etc. But wouldn’t these groups belong with the white race, and rather, they are ethnicities belonging to one?
Again, this an argument that white supremacists would make, and downplays that the actual authentic culture as a Frenchman would have against a German, and furthermore, have the self-determined right to divide and segregate themselves, as a “French race,” against any egalitarian liberalism, or forcefully belonging to one mixed race of similar ethnicities.
“The white race” is a semantic paradox that only frames the argument for liberalism and egalitarianism, two opposing systems that go against biological realities of the world. Take for example the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War and how divided online “white nationalists” are when taking a side. How are Russians or Ukrainians supposed to get along in an equally divided, “good fences makes good neighbors” conundrum where supposedly all European people could do nothing wrong? White supremacy is suppose to advocate all values of whiteness and the subcultures around it. Did any of these white advocates ever think that as a malaise of unrooted, deracinated people, they could side with any authentic racial identities, and in return, Russians and Ukrainians would also advocate their beige egalitarianism? If push comes to shove, Ukrainians want to be Ukrainian supremacists, and Russians want to be Russian supremacists. White supremacy is vague and ambiguous, and advocates a Christian-like crusade of liberal egalitarianism against the natural world.
So for all the normative white people who do not engage with radical politics, where do they stand?
The normative white person does not believe in race, because they too are deracinated from any racial identity. They are bombarded with “anti-white” propaganda from the state and told to feel guilty for being white. This encourages Christian original sin, and enforces individualism as the identity politic. Race is a learnt phenomena. If no one questions race, race seems alien and insignificant. Without race, identity is still prevalent, but accessed through the looking glass of blank slate egalitarianism and consumer subculture, as direct cultural byproduct of capitalism.
This is likely the core tenant why white people are naturally blind by their own nature. Like what Max Weber argues in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, perhaps the real reason why white people advocate their own self-destruction is through their own natural blindness as animals, never questioning their own metaphysical reality, while casually embracing the hedonistic life of simply existing. As racist stereotypes exist in each race, the description of what “stuff white people like” is an indication of the admixture European person without a race. It’s not that white people deliberately ignore racial realities, it’s just that they don’t understand what race is, never questions it, ignore it out of confusion, or, in urban cases, would rather advocate a resentful and contrarian liberalism that is transhumanist and self-hating by design.
This white behavior could all be understood through Kevin B. MacDonald’s work on Individualism and the Western Liberal Tradition: Evolutionary Origins, History, and Prospects for the Future. Eurocentric blindness could be understood on an evolutionary point-of-view, and that genetically speaking, admixture European people are prone to liberal and egalitarian behavior because of their need to survive in cold conditions. Whatever this is true or not, MacDonald gives us insight that Eurocentric blindness is innate, and not just cultural propaganda. White people are willing to live Plato’s Ethics of “the good life,” even if it means living in a hypocritical gated-community against the hostile nonwhites. Meanwhile, these secluded whites will virtue signal, or purity spiral one another, to advocate on their own individual level that they are good people doing the right thing. Poor white are simply “deplorables” who don’t know right from wrong. Eurocentric blindness isn’t so much deliberate when it wants to be, but a natural cultural attitude white people uphold as normal, akin to being a good Christian. Or, an arrogant and condescending moralist.
White people will never help one another, as individuals are more important than family. All nonwhite people will gladly help one another around their own race. But whites? That’s racist. Whites not only have labeled themselves as people without identity, but they have also constructed a modernist zeitgeist around egalitarianism and meritocracy, where those who are “good” are promoted, and those who are “bad” (that is, question this reality) are shunned. All goes according to the values of individualism and scapegoating perceived anti-liberal “evil.” As white advocate Jared Taylor has pointed out, the “current insanity is grounded in this unique white thirst for egalitarian virtue.” Eurocentric blindness is as natural as white people thriving to fight for equality.
Something is wrong in context. As Georges Bataille wrote in The Solar Anus, white people can be described as “the parody of another.” Not French, Irish or German, but mere parodies of those authentic identities, without one. And, “a man who finds himself among others is irritated because he does not know why he is not one of the others.” The “current” insanity, as Taylor points out, rather has been with white people since the conception of whiteness. The true “thirst for annihilation” is unique within the nature of white people, as they wish only to make the world transhumanist as they thirst for egalitarianism, thus making them unnatural. Liberals are right to assume “white people are not a race” when white people can only see themselves as “the individualism race” and apply the ethics around them. Bataille, writing on inversions and opposites, is like the Marquis de Sade, where he is pointing out a disturbed reality bent on self-destruction and investigation through transgression. White people will jeer and celebrate their virtue signaling, but at the same time, they see themselves as an innate threat against the world. Once all white people are dead and gone, at least their values of egalitarianism continues on like a black sun.
As much as I have scorn for white people in general, I excuse their ignorance with regards to race, their own self-awareness, and liberalism. Some liberals claim they left whiteness in favor of a new identity, as Robert Paul Wolff stated in “Autobiography of an Ex-White Man: Learning a New Master Narrative for America.” What are they, then, without blank slate egalitarianism? Identity politics is crucial to understanding cultural anthropology and human psychology. Identity simply cannot be erased. It rather takes on authentic or inauthentic forms. Subculture is ultimately an inauthentic identity based around capitalism and consumerism. Mere pandering of liberalism is cancerous like a solar anus.
Eurocentric blindness is a natural characteristic of white people. I don’t blame them for their ignorance on metaphysics. It just is. Normative people are naturally philistines, or, people who are hostile or indifferent to culture and the arts, and have no understanding of them. Stupid people don’t deserve attention, but only pity. Like a humble teacher, I can only pat them on the back, give them a lecture, and assure they will eventually learn about the truth.
Saw this HL and subheadline and thought "horseshoe theory"
>But wouldn’t these groups belong with the white race, and rather, they are ethnicities belonging to one?
There is no "white race." "White" is a demographic category invented by the census department. It basically amounts to Anglo-Saxons, plus whatever other ethnic groups seem to be able to assimilate into the above without too much difficulty. It's completely relative and not the least bit scientific.
There are racial types, but in biology these are categorized by bone structure, not by pigmentation (a black lab is the same as a yellow lab, etc.)
Ergo, human racial categories are based on skull shape: caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid, etc.
These biological categorizations have nothing whatsoever to do with culture, nor do they influence it.
Data abounds. Wignats insist that they do, but that is because they have absolutely no idea what culture is.