We’ve made the big time, folks! And by “we,” I don’t mean “me,” specifically, but rather the reactosphere as a nebulous organization has made the big time! The New York Times, the Washington Post, and other esteemed publications are talking about the alt-right, the manosphere, neoreaction, paleoconservatism, and all of the various permutations of intellectual louts that give the powers-that-be a nervous twinge.
And yet, of all the articles by “proper thinkers” on us, I was most affected by a Cracked article.
You remember Cracked, don’t you? That website that used to feature light humor and occasionally thought-provoking articles before Jason “David Wong” Pargin (I won’t address the cultural appropriation) went down the social justice rabbit hole and turned his website into a low(er) rent version of Salon, much to the dismay of his former fans?
A few months ago, they published an article titled “Some Brief Friendly Advice About Racism,” in which Mr. “Wong” attempted to analyze the reactosphere in an objective way to prove us wrong. While I found much to disagree with, there was one serious question it raised in me:
The 6th bit of advice was “Always Ask About the Endgame,” and then went to ask “Even if these numbers are true, what do you want to do about it?”
Obviously, the implication is that the “hate facts” we learn about will inevitably lead to genocide and minorities being herded into box cars to go to concentration camps. Having been in association with a fair amount of the movers and shakers of the New/Alt Right, I can safely say that most of us do NOT, in fact, want to aggress against anybody, and most of us–at least theoretically–do not want genocide. I’ve certainly argued against imperialism many times specifically for the pragmatic reason that it leaves blood on your hands and a guilt complex that your children will bear–just take a look around you for five minutes to see examples of that happening.
But the question kept nagging me. What, exactly, IS our “end game”? What DO we want as the end result of our revolution?
Just ballparking it, I can tell you what I think would be a good “end game” for all of this:
1) We have to have the absolute legitimacy of “hate facts” established. The statistics on crime and IQ, anthropological research suggesting that multiculturalism and multiracialism are at best enormous difficulties, the legitimacy of traditional gender roles (up to a certain point), the brutally honest evaluation at all cultures including ourselves, and lastly–but certainly not least–the idea that white people have legitimate group interests, a legitimate culture and deserve the right to merely exist. All of these are just a few common threads I see, and without establishing the truthfulness of things of this nature, no other things are possible.
2) In acknowledging that “good fences make for good neighbors,” and that dysfunction and tribalism only increase in multicultural/racial scenarios, let us cease the demands for open borders and forced multiculturalism. All nations–no matter what race or color they are–have a right to decide what they want to do, and should countries decide to close their borders and retain their founding stock, let them do so! Acknowledge that while immigration is not always bad, it’s up to the discretion of the people of any particular nation to decide for themselves. Japan, South Korea, Hungary, and Poland aren’t perfect, but they seem to be getting along alright with incredibly strict immigration policies, so can we at least acknowledge that not having immigration is not inherently a kiss of death fora country?
3) In reading #2, realize of course that nations like the USA, Canada, and Australia are already multiracial and multicultural. You can argue whether or not that is good or bad. Ffrankly, I’ve always said that America is the closest the world has ever come since the Roman Empire to a true multicultural country and you should be very disturbed by that fact. However, we cannot deny the fact that multiracialism is the cross that those countries bear, and there’s no getting around the reality of the situation without attempting to act upon the lunatic Neo-Nazi fantasies that Andrew Anglin and his DailyStormer ilk feed to impressionable 14-year-old losers (of course, I highly doubt that Mr. Andy “The Only Sex I’ve Ever Had Was With Filipino Hookers” Anglin even believes in his own racial demagoguery).
The question remains: are these multicultural/racial countries doomed to have ethnic albatrosses around their necks for all eternity? I don’t necessarily think so.
A common argument used by immigration boosters is “…Well, the Irish were discriminated against and weren’t seen as white and then they assimilated and became seen as ‘regular Americans.'” Ignoring that this piece of feel-good history is not exactly true, there is still some truth to it in that: yes, the Irish were discriminated against, and were seen as being inferior to Anglo-Saxon people.
Of course, what they don’t tell you is that when the first wave of the Irish diaspora came to the United States, they didn’t exactly ingratiate themselves to their new neighbors. While the implication the immigration boosters always promote is that once tolerance and doing something were done, the Irish magically became accepted in American Society. What they leave is out that tolerance and acceptance only came about after a deliberate effort by Irish-American leaders to, in essence, get their community to stop acting like complete jackasses.
So why couldn’t a similar thing be done with problem communities today? This is where the hate facts come in very handy. Let’s make the statistics known to everybody that some groups commit more crime than others, and some groups do worse on standardized testing than others. Let’s give these problem groups just a hint of “motivational shame” (which I advocate here and here), and maybe–just maybe–they’ll seek to improve themselves.
It can’t be any worse than having guilty white liberals constantly run interference for them. I’m under no false impressions that white people are somehow immune to sloth, apathy, and vice. White people can fall prey to degeneracy as well. If the social justice industry were around in the 19th century, who’s to say there wouldn’t still be a dysfunctional Hibernian community in America today, making up elaborate faux-Gaelic names for themselves, and constantly cursing Anglo perfidy?
4) Assuming that #3 doesn’t work, and those communities remain problematic, we can always just apply the rule in #2 to smaller states, municipalities, and various housing constructs. And if that’s sounds like de-facto segregation to you…that’s basically what the talk of “safe spaces” and “de-Europeanization” is leading up to, isn’t it?
Some metrics show that black people have lost net worth as a whole in the United States since segregation ended. Of course, this all reiterates that, again, people generally like to be with their own kind.
If there is apparently such a demand for segregation, at the very least, let us compromise by not demanding forced integration that ultimately doesn’t seem to make either party particularly happy. Hate facts, encouraging groups to clean up their act, and generally leaving people alone. I think that’s a pretty solid end game, yes?
Freedom is not a finite but infinite game the struggle will go on because freedom has been defined so many different ways. Some of the most repressive systems have been designed under some twisted definition of freedom.
Wayback in the 1960’s black men were ascendent and making good money in the trades and blue collar jobs, and they were often in a marriage with children and they were going to the white normalcy – there was segregation, but crime and things like out of wedlock births were low. Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams talked about how safe it was when they were growing up, but the black community was forced to be so. Now with the sense of entitlement and victimhood, as well as getting cash payments for destroying their families (LBJ did what Slavery didn’t), they’ve become all but feral in many areas