End the Scourge of White Supremacy

https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/08/end-scourge-of-white-supremacy
The above open letter in the Guardian is penned by The London Recruits group which states "It is long past time to end the scourge of white supremacy."


Let us be clear what this is about, delivering the death blow to Western Civilization. It has nothing to do with racism. The statistics prove that. It is and has been for decades about crippling the traditions, productivity, and finally the security of Western Civilization.

As the demographics of the West continue to shift animosity against whites has grown and is reaching a fever pitch. Race relations will undoubtedly get worse and the real question will become how will whites respond?

Do you think whites will be guilt-tripped into not pushing back, ultimately surrendering to the madness and complying with their replacement? If they do rebel what will that look like? Is resistance futile?

P.S. History has shown us that violent conflict between ethnic and racial groups is everlasting and there exists no example of it ever working out well. Is there something I am missing here?

 

Where and how does history show this?

 

The Balkans would be exhibit A. Thirty years war might be B. Rwandan Genocide C. Etc etc. Please tell me where it has worked out well???

 

Racism in America (and in western civilization more generally) is in some ways the ugly face of something that has much longer roots than America itself: the primordial instincts -- associated with all animals that had learned to pack together (both for survival, as well as to prey on others) -- to show their belligerence towards other packs. It was the ugly face because it took a truth from the pages of the story of human evolution and, through the kind ideological indoctrination that western civilization could only manage, turn it into a virulent and dangerous set of falsehoods. Falsehoods that form the backbone of ideologies that sought to preserve mythical things, such as pure race or pure culture, and which became the biggest threat to human beings moving from their animalistic past to something better. To become something better as part of an evolutionary journey that has many chapters that have not even begun to unfold.

I have a lot more to say on all these points, and a lot more, but I will try to say it over several messages from the discussion that takes place. But the irony of how these ideologies of tribalism and racism found support among those who claimed to understand the story of evolution (but never did), developing theories of Social Darwinism to justify their creed, is no less than the irony of those who sought to develop a 'scientific basis' for their idiocy by adopting theories of "Aryan supremacy"! The idiocy of these notions aside, the irony is just unbelievable and incredible if anyone was in fact properly educated still in what you call 'Western civilization"!

 

There is no systemic racism in the USA. In fact, the US political system is expressly anti-racist and has been for decades.

Affirmative action policies, forced integration, hate crime laws, civil rights laws, etc.

The problem is not racism, but statism, the worst, most deadly ideology in human history, the ideology that has killed more people than all other ideologies combined.

The state is the most violent, dysfunctional institution that has ever existed. It owes its existence to mass violence and intimidation. Without widespread coercion,the state would cease to exist. Nobody would voluntarily support the state if they had the choice, which is why the state does not give people the choice.

The state is nothing more than a prettified bunch of gangsters. And the state, not racism, is why George Floyd is dead.

 

Racism is the manifestation of one side of the coin (tribalism -- however the tribe is defined, using whatever label) that has battled the other side of the coin (universalism) under various creeds and ideologies ever since the founding of the American Republic. American legal culture represented from the beginning America's more universalist aspirations battling its tribal ones, with the evolution of American law showing the respective balance of power between the two sides. But racism in America, supported by a ideological indoctrination both borrowing from what was taking place elsewhere and adding chapters to it at home, has been and continues to be, too powerful a force among many of its people.

 

There is nothing unique in the social situation in North America. "Whites" are no better or worse than any other group one might wish to try to separate from the rest of humanity when it comes to oppression. If one were to push the point, history quickly shows that slavery was present everywhere throughout history and that its abolition largely emerged from European civilization and its offshoots.
We are treating symptoms and missing the disease. Human psychology needs deep healing. Only external bandages are currently being applied and they are very far from enough.

 

True and false again.
True about slavery, oppression and the animalistic instincts which have seen all animals which learned to pack to find different mechanisms to protect their pack and dominate others, whether their pack came to be defined as a tribe, under a 'religious flag', under a national one, or under multi-national, 'racial' one. False, in that the ideological phenomenon of racism was no where developed as much as in the West -- and no where as virulent and powerful as a result. Never mind that 'ideology' was devoid of any serious enlightenment.

 

We can continue to politely disagree, then. The only thing concerning "race" that has happened in the "West" is that it has been put more under the microscope than elsewhere, perhaps.

 

"
End the Scourge of White Supremacy
"

White supremacy did NOT end well in Germany.

White supremacy did NOT end well in Zimbabwe.

White supremacy did NOT end well in South Africa.

White supremacy will NOT end well in America.

The vast MAJORITY of We the People are NOT racist bigots.

The SMALL MINORITY that are racist white supremacists have already been classified as DOMESTIC TERRORISTS and they will either end up behind bars or going into hiding.

That is what will end the SCOURGE of white supremacy.

 

I certainly hope we can continue to be 'polite'. In invite you to lay out whatever is your mind, but do so politely -- and with the patience to hear a narrative that you may not have been exposed to before.

Now, to the main point of our disagreement: I have distinguished western racism by the fact that it found an ideological component. You aren't going to find similarly popular ideologies outside of Western civilization organized around explicitly racial theories. I think that is pretty much well-established and nothing particularly original in what I am saying on this point.

To be sure, you will see tribalist forces and tribal sentiments (whether in the context of the tribe being those organized under a religious flag, or a national one or any other) still leave its imprint on what was happening elsewhere, outside of Western civilization. But the quest to explain this all through 'race' is unique to the West. Indeed, the father of 'scientific racism' (pseudo-scientific to be sure), was a French aristocrat who was ironically much in love with Iran (despite finding its people a race 'from who knows where?"), and his story, is a great example of how lack of genuine enlightenment can take people to the opposite direction of the evidence in front of their eyes, even as its power can still be gripping even for those who don't recognize it. The same way "social Darwinism" in the West is ultimately the opposite of what the story of human evolution is all about, yet, it another form of 'social Darwinism" (or social Tusi-ism, after a Persian polymath who not only paved the work of Copernicus through what is called in mathematics the Tusi Couple, but who had developed a theory of both biological and social evolution many centuries before Darwin) that is actually the one can help you find the right path beyond tribalism to something more enlightened still. Something closer to the true 'uberman' than what Nietzsche had introduced centuries later in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (an Iranian prophet that, even using him figuratively, of course never spoke such -- but whose influence on all subsequent monotheistic religions was by introducing universalist concepts into what were tribal religions). An uberman more like what Rumi, a Persian poet, had in mind HERE.

I hope I get the chance to develop the story that I like to tell, in a way that only someone who is familiar and fluent in the material that can lead to telling this story properly, can tell.

 

This answers one part of my initial question. This answer being that if whites do resist they will be imprisoned or go into hiding.

Can anyone give us an example where a multi ethnic and racial experiment has worked out well?

 

Worked out well compared to what? To societies that were isolated by circumstance? Or those which sought to isolate themselves by force?

A society that is isolated, not by design but by circumstance, may be able to avoid becoming multi-ethnic and multi-racial as long as that isolation persists, but the entire history of mankind is the story of different people of different backgrounds mixing and mingling together to become what they are now. The tribes who you want to now isolate and insulate from others, are themselves a product of the process. Of course, the process I allude to tests a lot of the primordial tribal instincts I have referred to in my previous posts, but the idea that you can forcibly prevent this from happening is what has produced the worst cases in history. Others have mentioned them in this thread.

As for your question, I am somewhat reluctant to give you examples, only because it will tend to then lead to polemical discussions devoid of a true understanding of the issues and the historical context being discussed. But since you have asked: the best examples of what you are asking would probably be, inter alia, the Persian empire during the Achaemenid dynasty, the Abassid caliphate during the so-called Golden Age of Islam, and more recently, the United States of America itself, especially in the post -1965 period before the Trumpian reaction -- and this, despite the fact that America's history of virulent racism, born from peculiar historical circumstances, has indeed put huge strains on the whole issue.

 

You seem to be inferring that mixing and mingling is a natural human trait. On an individual level, maybe, but history shows that most of the aforementioned mixing is the result of wars/conquest/submission. If the human race is on an inevitable track of inter-mingling, it is not through some process of free-willed osmosis.

Perhaps we'll one day get to a point of being post-racial and post-national, but that day is far off.

 

Racism and even the virulent political division and hatred comes forth from tribalism. This was seen in the amerindians and existed in America before europeans came to the new world.

No doubt tribalism is a product of evolution and survival yet we can evolve away from it. And have to some degree. Yet politically it lives on and grows. And is accepted and encouraged.

 

If you look at Canada, who boasts a cultural mosaic instead of melting pot, you will see a lot less bigotry and racism. There are cultural and racial differences at play. Celebrate instead of forcing integration creates a more understanding and tolerant society.

 

My son in law bought some baby chicks for egg laying. They are almost ready to lay eggs . From the get go the white ones banded together as a group while the red ones segregated into a group and remain that way.

No ideology involved .

 

I think the wrong question is being asked here. If the large white majority (or even half of it) decides they have had enough and starts acting out its going to be really really bad for minorities. If you push the white community too far how are you going to stop them from extreme retaliation?

 

wrong reply! deleted

 

There's communities all across the world where various ethnic groups not only coexist peacefully but benefit mutually by adopting the positive aspects of eachothers cultures. The problems mostly ocurs where conflicting/incompatible cultures are forced to try to coexist, or when peoples already coexisting are manipulated to divide into multiple conflicting cultures.

To be frank, much of the 'racial' clash throughout history and most of what we call racism today is actually just culture clash, and much of that is the result of manipulative agencies pushing division to fit their various agendas that would fail the instant we commonfolk stopped focusing on bickering with eachother.

 

I don't see mixing and mingling a natural human trait. As I have mentioned, in fact, a primordial instinct is a tribal ones that actually does not invite such mixing and mingling to occur easily and without resistance. What I see, however, is that such mixing and mingling has occurred throughout history (by conquest, but also other things such as what happens after such conquests) and it will occur. And I see all human beings to be products of it, in its different shapes and manifestations.

What I also see, however, is that regardless of the tribal instincts that exist, once the tribe (however defined, be it a tribe, nation or race) is (for whatever reason) in close enough contact with other tribes, a combination of factors and universalist forces (which are the other side of the coin) paving the way for this mixing and mingling to take place over time. So much so that a new tribe then emerges in many ways from the process.

 

Evryone os racist, its in human nature.

 

To some extent, as there is definitely a primordial instinct in humans (and animals) that gravitates in that direction. But that instinct, ordinarily, competes with other instincts and forces in nature. The latter is what various ideologies, from early tribal ones to more developed ones in the West, have sought to fight against. The question is not whether both instincts exist: to that, the answer is yes. The question is whether it is good for society to encourage the first instinct, and suppressing its opposite, by resorting to theories and ideologies that create hatred against others? I don't think so.

 

I'm going to try to stay positive and guess the US will turn into another Latin American country - only without the pleasant climate.

Many here are too ignorant to know what that means though, and everything it would entail, not knowing what things are like for people living these Latin American countries in Central and South America.

 

I repped your post, but I should make this clear: in the context of our discussion with humans, the role of ideology can be to either teach these chickens to hate one another to prevent them from mixing, teach them to not only not hate but even to encourage the chickens in your example to mix or, alternatively to do neither: let them choose according to their different instincts each. Not to teach to hate, even if they choose the way they are choosing your example.