OLD CONTENT
www.counter-currents.com/2020/06/white-nationalism-for-dummies/Another myth that must be addressed is that of “hate.” In truth, white nationalism is about love. Love of history, love of culture, love of family and community. Love of those who share our values and sensibilities. To be sure, there is nothing inherently wrong with hate. Hate is an emotion, as valid as any other. Sometimes hate is a productive emotion, if the energy is channeled usefully. If I discovered a child being sexually abused by a ****, hate for the sick and perverted would be much more useful than empathy. Empathy often leads to permissiveness, whereas hate can lead to justice, when it is rationally wielded through ideological self-control.
Isn't this just circular logic?
In the case of Jews and Asians, they’ve been elevated to elite positions in our society that often displace legacy white Americans. In most cases, their intelligence and work ethic warrants a modicum of success, but despite their economic prosperity and status, they are still allowed to claim that they’re oppressed by whites. Instead of pointing out this hypocrisy, our white elected officials grovel and prostrate themselves to appease them rather than stand up for the white people they should be representing.
And what legacy white Americans are they replacing? They never answer this, because most of them are dead oil tycoons, plantation owners, or statesmen. Regardless, the point is that this is not different from the rampant need of nepotism. They don't want to replace this horrible system in its entirety, they just want their "tribe" to have overall privilege. (which they already. still have?)
---
"Isn't this just circular logic?"
Worse, it is just sloppy reasoning. For example:
If I discovered a child being sexually abused by a ****, hate for the sick and perverted would be much more useful than empathy. Empathy often leads to permissiveness, whereas hate can lead to justice
This makes it sound like we must choose between empathy and hate. This is untrue. The psychologically accurate description is that
we hate the oppressor because we empathize with the victim, and indeed the more we empathize with the victim, the more we will hate the oppressor. Therefore empathy does not lead to permissiveness, unless we bizarrely empathize with the oppressor instead of with the victim. But the oppressor, in order to be psychologically able to oppress, had to lack empathy for the victim in the first place. Therefore it was still
lack of empathy that permitted the oppression to begin with.
Our ethical duty is to start with empathy for everyone, and then cease empathy towards those who first ceased their empathy towards their victims. This is just Ahimsa reworked: non-empathy is violence, and initiated violence demands retaliatory violence.
But of course rightists cannot say this, since that would justify non-empathy for (and retaliatory violence towards) colonialists (the indisputable initiators of violence during the colonial era), which contradicts their tribalist teaching of siding with "whites" against "non-whites" even when "whites" are in the ethical wrong, which is what they really mean by this part:
white nationalism is about love. Love of history, love of culture, love of family and community.
Thus the rightist has to make it sound like empathy itself is the problem!
"they just want their "tribe" to have overall privilege. (which they already. still have?)"
Exactly.
Home
Search
Login
Register