Race Obsession and the Dissident Right
I figured I would write an actual blog post, and not a small essay, to clear my head a bit. For most of my time in politics I’ve just paid no mind to these things but at a certain time you are faced with a choice. Do you continue to hold your tongue or do you simply say what is on your mind? I would rather just be honest with myself.
The differences in mentalities between partisans lies in both of the ideas of operational consistency and of operational reality. To understand this aspect of politics (how operations are followed and drawn up) we also have to understand group dynamics by necessity—there is no operation that does not have an actor and an acted upon, of course. Each actor must execute commands for a common goal shared with the acted upon; that also means that for each member they must as well have some shared upbringing or idea about principles, or even leadership. If they do not share those same principles and leadership in that moment, then this shared sense of commitment usually is beckoned or gestured to when there once was a time when they might have shared such ideals. The members of this dynamic each share that same mentality and commitment by being there at all; but do they live and speak it? Are there scenarios where they might as well not be on that scene at all? Imagine that the members of this, hypothetical, group gather around—like a board meeting. Think how they would answer the question, “If a solution to this problem (that we all share) can be solved while doing the least amount of work, why would we choose the action that hemorrhages not only the time of the group but also the emotional wherewithal of its members?”
This is a common field of derision in those members of the group that want expediency and those that have dispositions that are much more demurred and ‘chill’ by nature. In some instances, we can also believe there would be instigators who would say (to that initial question, like it’s some insult), “This ideal, this command, is so important that the blood, sweat and tears are worth it. No matter the pain.” If we imagine an operation that involves physical activity this might have been said to provoke the weak among them. We can also believe the opposite might be brought up in defense of those less fortunate in physicality like, “It is unfathomable and ridiculous to do so. Do you not see the value of the meager in our ranks? Those that were born weaker should not be broken by unchained ambition. Have restraint!” This might be ushered in as a call for wisdom and a call for patience; to them life often has many paths and it is not necessary to be perfect before executing an operation. Often perfection is impossible to begin with. This hypothetical situation often boils down to one thing.
For political groups this type of argument always amounts to time. Time it takes to work and finish an operation. Time that is given to them to complete it. We have talked about this before in our article Think Tanks as well as Organization and Political Dissent. It is what has defined the difference in the value of methods of research between academics par excellence and political advisors par excellence. Certain statistical methodologies—loved and adored by academics—had to be scrapped due to their time intensive nature—carefully think of how it would be possible, were the opposing political advisors to try to act on the result of an experiment that never could come in time for their deadline. Those same experiments, seemingly to them, had to be replaced with highly localized studies and persuasive argumentation. More has been written about this in Jason Stahl’s book Right Moves as well as No Mercy by Delgado et. al..
For those in the dissident right they simply want to break other races. It is the time it takes to convert another race to their cause versus the time given to them before violence ensues. Sometimes this rhetoric amounts to, “Look at all these Jews in the government! Action is needed!” Other times it is, “Look at all this time the blacks had fix themselves and to ‘wisen’ up. How they waste their time! Let them suffer and repeal as much support as we can.” At its core it is an uncurdled ambition to call forth fellow white supremacists to defeat some minority opponent. Which really does not help the accusations of institutionalized racism and subconscious colonial attitude that is lobbed at them from the left. When you spend your time demeaning inner city blacks or even the “zionist” shills in government positions, what do you really expect to happen? Like really; what purpose does that accomplish?
You only arrive in the dissident right if you cannot feel accepted by the current society. Which while perhaps not a perfect melting pot (we are still quite a heterogenous nation after all) a lot of the new generations really don’t see it that way. I am drawing on personal experience, but often enough its been this older crowd and these older generations who are scared of repercussions. To most of us, we were taught that racism was an evil. Why would we enslave another race? They speak the same as we do, they can accomplish what we can, they can participate in our monetary regime, so why dismiss them? To write them off on that notion even though they can participate in every ritual we had and do have as a culture, is to call them subhuman. To liken them to pets—like excitable dogs—that the Great White Saviour has adopted out of the kindness of his heart. The liberal notion of equality for all based on human rights may have some issues, philosophically and linguistically, but none of us can deny the reality of these markers.
If you were to study the history of “hominidization”—how we began to genetically mutate into bona fide humans from our older arboreal ancestors—you would learn that being human isn’t too difficult. It would seem that a lot of the archeological evidence showcases that some of our deepest ancestors shared our culture and ability to use language, without yet being too genetically different from their ape brethren. The Lomekwian tools are some of the best case studies we have for this, actually, as they appear to have had an innovative creative process in their production (passive hammers and anvils) as well as pre-dating all hominid lineages. Previously some of the oldest were our Oldowan tools, which suggested tool development was a later, Paleolithic and markedly advanced hominid development. Those Oldowan ones had been created using free hand methods, as opposed to anvils to boot which casts an interesting light on tool creation and culture. More studies have unearthed even more interesting results with the usage of not only camp fires and torches as well as the sheparding of wild fires. Of course, many with racist dispositions will make genetic case study arguments as if something as utterly baseless and pseudoscientific could exist among us highly advanced homo sapiens—the crown jewel of all hominid lineages. Small differences in phenotype and cranial sizes (utterly paltry compared to the differences in brain mass between pre-hominids and homo sapiens) do not determine what types of rituals a child will learn.
Nearly every statistical argument is launched and lived within this genetic framing. If you truly want to study the differences in “races”, then you must start with religious rituals, environmental, opportunity and cultural differences. The differences in genetics is so small that these extremist arguments about the “human” quality of these other races, as if any of them can be qualified as subhuman, is as hilarious as it is disturbing. Yet when you look, again, at what separates mature cultures (post-axial age cultures and religions) and compare them to pre-historic cultures, you’ll again notice a shocking similarity; most of these mature cultures have more in common with each other than either of them do with the pre-historic ones.
If you begin with derision then you will find it.
I bring most of this up to simply state my current views on the subject. I suspect I, myself, will be derided among these goons for my geopolitical naivety. But the foundation of every geopolitical argument they would bring begins with one that seeks its enemies first and not its kin. Claiming Anglo supremacy is just a disguise for this. The subtle fact that there is so much Russophilia as well as Sinophilia within the Dissident Right should come to no surprise, here. Its a choose your own adventure for racial fantasizing: pick the most, seemingly, racial homogenous state and defend them relentlessly!
I hold onto the Buddhist notion of bodhicitta, first and foremost. So I mean no explicit harm and believe we should use our own strengths to help those that suffer. However, we simply don’t need to hold onto this racial purity and aversion—as well as this ignorance of the broader history of what it means to be human—to confidently and clearly assemble a geopolitical operation: this includes racial prejudice. Many subtle and not so subtle racial ideologues will claim that you need to be on their side (for what goal?), before understanding the problem at hand that we all face together—however this is a false mentality. We can understand and come to terms with our common human qualities, first, and not resort to nearly baseless subhuman argumentation.
If you want to talk about hostile agents within a group, then do so (in the same way I am considering these racial ideologues hostile actors); but if your first instinct is to talk about the nature of the Jew and then the Jewry, why should anyone even listen to you to begin with?
I know there are a couple of people who do read my work and say these things in public, so I’d rather just draw some more lines in the sand. Why would I put myself in the company with a bunch of fools who keep insisting I see nameless, faceless Muslims and Jews around every corner plotting behind my back?
Bodhicitta appears in both relative and absolute forms—the Buddha never willing kills himself, nor does he kill others—the Buddha chooses the middle path beyond both of the extremes, attaining awakening or enlightenment so he can better shepherd others to the same realization. However, complete attainment also means not abiding in the company of those who deny you and others peace—this type of peace doesn’t even exclude dynamicism, athleticism or even military excellence—it is the stability that a clear head and mind gives. Why should we focus on the hate of others and project it to their entire race, is that not just ignorance? If racial ideologues could accomplish bodhicitta they wouldn’t be so confused about why leftists see them as truly evil and reprehensible—it would be clear and unproblematic.