September 7, 2018
Richard Spencer has made yet another bold statement, which forces the receiver of the statement to think hard before making a determination about the nature of the statement.
We grew up in a world where white identity is something that is only hinted at. It is a kind of shadow over the landscape. It touches everything at various times, but it never takes a concrete form.
The proper definition of white identity would be: “A series of cultural and social norms, enforced by a common moral code, where the honor of the individual is based on his ability to contribute to the community. The most prized contributions are those that advance the greater whole of the collective, and the individuals who make these contributions are receive places of honor among the larger whole. A key aspect of this is the mutual contract between the individual and the collective, with each having an assumed duty to the other. A symbiotic relationship between the individual and the collective serves to propel society in a positive direction, with the greatest men being those who gave the most to the collective, while also receiving the greatest honor from the collective. A man who gives himself over to contributing to science, art, philosophy, statecraft and other high intellectual pursuits is seen as sacrificing himself for the whole, and is rightly rewarded with great respect. Just so, a man who gives himself over to contributing to society in smaller ways is also viewed as a positive figure in society, as is respected based on his contributions. The nuclear family serves as the primary vehicle of the individual to define his role in the larger society, which is strictly hierarchal, and within which authority is respected as a matter of course.”
This is of course something separate from individual culture, which differs from nation to nation. There is, however, an underlying similarity between various white cultures which can be defined as “white identity.”
Historically, white identity was never really defined as “white identity,” because people did not think in racial terms, generally because they did not encounter other races.
When we did encounter other races – first the various Moslem hordes – they were defined more by their behavior, which was linked to their cultural zeitgeist of Islam, which we contrasted with our own cultural zeitgeist of Christianity.
Although it was understood explicitly that they were fundamentally different creatures than ourselves, there was no science of evolutionary biology at the time, so things were not looked at in those terms. However, it remained true that “Christian” meant “white” and “Saracen” meant “not white.”
So “white identity” was just “Christendom,” which at the time was an all-encompassing social, cultural and political paradigm. It was a combination of pagan rites and spiritual practices and cultural codes of honor with Greek moral philosophy, and it worked very well for us.
Ironically (perhaps), in the modern era it was evolutionary biology that served to weaken Christianity as the cornerstone of the white European racial group. This, combined with the fact that during the colonial era, there was a program to convert non-whites to Christianity, made it so that “Christendom” no longer served as an appropriate definition of “white identity” – even while all the traditions and definitions of whiteness were inextricably linked to Christianity.
There was then in the late 19th and early 20th century an attempt to reframe whiteness – and non-whiteness – in terms of evolutionary biology. Germans were particularly big into this, but then they had this thing, and it ended badly, so it was deemed morally reprehensible for white identity to be framed in terms of evolutionary biology.
However, what it means to be a white person did not simply stop existing, despite the fact that neither Christianity nor biology could be used to define it in academia or scientific literature. We were hit with the myth that white identity does not exist, even while it was the water we swam in.
Everything about the post-war social order was based on Christianity, and what is considered traditional and acceptable morality remains a form of “cultural Christianity.”
However, the concept of white identity has since been framed as a kind of spook, even while aspects of implicit Christian morality are being used as weapons against us, because our psychology is evolved to respond to these emotional stimuli.
“Humanitarianism” is in itself a perversion of Christian morality, with the concept of charity being universalized to apply to biological out-groups. The humanitarian dream is to employ Christian morality as a means to negate the existence of the white men whose biology created the Christian moral paradigm as a means to advance civilization.
The Christian imperative to take care of others has been applied to people who are biologically incapable of responding in kind, and thus we have with the non-whites a host-parasite relationship.
The Insane Clown Posse has formed a tribalist in-group made-up exclusively of whites in the form of the “Juggalo” subculture. They have a community of whites who have cultural symbols and a rallying point around which they are able to define an identity as separate from the Other. They naturally racially separate, as the subculture they have created can only appeal to whites.
Richard Spencer undoubtedly understands more about Juggalo culture than I do, because he himself has spent so much time living among them. But I understand that the feeling of community is very strong, and that members of the group make it a priority to care for one another, even as they promote a culture of exclusion of the Other, through implicit methodology.
I will have to dig more into this, but on first glance, given what I do know about the Insane Clown Posse and their subculture, I tend to feel that I will end up agreeing with his premise.