Let Accidental Dissent know

If you’re an American (or Canadian or Australian — Europeans, that’s another matter) racialist and you think AD has contravened some principle of racialism, AD wants to know.  Prepare to be surprised/enlightened.

If you’re a “liberal,” an anti-racist or a person of uncertain racial heritage and you think AD is deplorable, evil, degrading etc, AD wants to know.  Prepare to be surprised/enlightened.  (There have been a number of visitors from such sites but as yet no comments.  Come on, I don’t bite.  Maximum respect guaranteed.  AD has battled the rubbish racists so you don’t have to.   In a very important sense, we’re in this mess together, those of us who’ve been raised in it, who had no say no it.)

You promised irreverence!

Yes, I did promise irreverence. And I’m capable of plenty of it, I can assure you.

The first few posts were necessary to establish the following:

(1) The nature of this blog — how and why I’ve started it.

(2) The (apparent) difficulty of reaching consensus on what race should mean once it is agreed that race matters.

(3) The (apparent) difficulty of personally coming to grips with race mattering.

Next, I just had to take a dig at Tom Sunic. I don’t mean to single him out personally. He’s no worse than a thousand other nouveaux blanches, whose grandfathers would have whipped them to hear them speak as they do today. But it’s not so much the petty racial climbing that bothers me; it’s the fact they all seem to gravitate to fascism or neo-paganism or some -ism that can’t just let race be sufficient, that distracts people and diverts discussions into arcane historical-political debates.

Then Michael O’Meara popped up on the radar with his nauseating anti-semitism. Look, I’m a “racist.” I don’t mind admitting I want nothing to do with…let’s see…avoiding the obvious targets…Papuans, say. I don’t want the slightest thing to do with them. Papua New Guinea could sink into the sea for all I care and I’d nary bat an eyelid. But would I dream of persecuting so much as a hair on their heads? Do I explode in apoplectic rage at the thought of them? Of course not. I bet O’Meara feels much the same way. But when it comes to the Jews, oh my. All bets are off. Can O’Meara possibly be unaware of the almost otherworldly loathing of Jews among racialists? The morality or propriety of it aside, does he see that as an advantage that he so stokes it? Regardless of what Jews think benefits them, the fact is the multiracial morass piling up doesn’t benefit them at all (my view, again, is that it doesn’t benefit anyone).

Getting to the meat of this post, I’ve been pondering S. Europeans. These are people I’ve spent the majority of my life with, so I feel I know them well enough to comment with some authority.

I want to talk about S. European racialists. If they’ve been around racialism for any length of time, they must have, I’m sure of it, realized two things:

(1) N. Europeans say they don’t want them as often as they say they do, and they’ve probably got an inkling that the ones who say they do don’t really mean it.

(2) That plenty of N. Europeans favor a partition solution.

Putting those two together you’d think that’d make S. Europeans partition fanatics. But you’d be wrong.

Despite the fact that all their lives they’ve been quite happy to exclude nordics (parties, get-togethers, etc), the moment they get a handle on race they all want to be Germans, and if they can’t be Germans they don’t want to be racists.

Now this is what gets me. They’ll have their own parties, their own Easters, their own circles of friends, but you give them the chance to have their own country [see Racial Compact], and they turn you down. Apparently they’d rather spend the rest of their lives dodging spics* and niggers*. Well, nordics have recognized for a long time that dagoes aren’t all that bright.

Here is McCulloch writing in The Occidental Quarterly:

Is there anything we could offer the groups selected for separation that would significantly lessen their opposition to it? What could be done to accommodate those groups, to lessen their opposition to separation, and possibly even gain some measure of support? Certainly whatever could be done within reason, that does not defeat the purpose of Nordish racial preservation or sacrifice the legitimate interests of the Nordish-American population, that would be worthwhile and not in vain, that addresses legitimate concerns without catering to obstructionism, should be done.

Geezus, is there? I had to rub my eyes to make sure I wasn’t imagining that. Fuck yes there is, is this guy’s answer.

Before I get to that answer, a few words about Richard McCulloch. This man knows race like few people know race. You read his earlier books and the impression you get is the next nordic you run into down the street will want to lop your head off for infecting his gene pool. So when Rich McCulloch is talking partition, you can be damn sure it’s the result of some very long hours spent thinking about race. Call me stupid, but him I feel I can trust. (Now, the rest of them, like my good buddy “CaptainChaos,” I’m not too sure about. Him, we’ll have to work on.)

Back to that answer. Look, the prospect of having our own country carved out of the U.S.A is so deliciously attractive that I can’t believe American dagoes haven’t published sixteen books on how to convince American jingoists to grant us one. (I have a pretty good answer on how to sell that one too — so I like to think, anyway.) Nevertheless, it’s obvious some people are going to require some enticing. First and foremost, you don’t describe it as “selected for separation.” That makes it sound like you’re about to load people onto cattle carts and gas ‘em. The trick is to sell people on the wonders of it. I’ll detail some of that in an upcoming post.

(By the way, for any Australian dago readers from Melbourne (I doubt there’ll be many for now, but we’ll scrounge some up), remember how great the northern suburbs used to be 10, 20 years ago? Before all the Samoans, Tongans, Sudanese, Indians etc started descending on the place? When it was just us vs the Aussies? Imagine those places were our country and we were in charge: could anyone ever trick us into accepting these people in our midst?)

* re spics and niggers.  The reason I throw these terms is because I want to treat race with the irreverence it deserves.  Race, I believe (as you can tell), is necessary for the good life.  You have race, and the majority of your interactions take place with your own people and the people you see on the streets are your people and everything feels great.  But that’s as far as I take race. I don’t worship it; I don’t revere it; I don’t give a god damn if anyone wants to attack mine — verbally, that is (and they’ve attacked plenty, you can be sure).

As for the ‘dodging.’ Well, that’s reality.  Hispanics aren’t as much of  a problem (not for me, anyway), but blacks generally are.  Nevertheless, it’s the job of every honest racialist to work with anyone who sees the need to or the value in separating (whatever form it takes), and to help those who are going to need the most help in doing it.  There must be literally millions of good, loyal hispanic and black citizens who surely deserve something better than being treated as mere spics and mere niggers, no matter the difficulties we create for each other in the aggregate.

Michael O’Meara’s Anti-Semitism

Michael O’Meara is another “New Right” intellectual, ie raging anti-semitic blowhard. He has a new article up at The Occidental Quarterly Online blog called “Evola’s Anti-Semitism.”

O’Meara is ostensibly reviewing Evola but his objective is to allow Evola to present the case for anti-semitism, a cause O’Meara is devoted to heart and soul . This is nothing racialists haven’t heard before (the laundry list of accusations + “semitic spirit” vs “aryan spirit”), but it does reach a conclusion worth taking the trouble to dismiss.

O’Meara says:

Insofar as the twenty-first century announces a new order of battle, Evola’s apolitical stoicism can no longer be our position today.

But it is nevertheless one that points to what is at stake in the wars we’ll have to fight if whites are to have a future—for the white man’s blood will not survive if he defiles the spirit that makes him who he is.

“The spirit that makes him who he is.” Because everyone is just crystal clear on what that is. And being so crystal clear, now everyone knows exactly what he has to do. Right.

So much for “spirit” then.

Let’s cut to the heart of the matter. O’Meara is a Level 5 despairist, just like his idol, the comically aristocratic “Count” Evola. That is the reason he is incapable of making a straightforward racialist case, why he has to permeate his racialism with spiritual longings only his despairists-in-arms will comprehend.

With respect to the guidance of The Occidental Quarterly’s publisher, the reality of American racialism appears to be this: American racialists have not achieved a clear vision of their goal [who? where?]; they have not devised a pragmatic strategy to achieve that goal [Evola? Because everything in modernity is so horrible and "semitic"?]; and the ‘permanent campaign’ has consisted of whining on the internet.  American racialism has needlessly complicated the issues involved and needlessly set itself athwart the zeitgeist and does not appear to wish to learn much of anything from its failures.

Tomislav Sunic, Level 3 racialist.

Tomislav Sunic is a Croatian “European New Right” intellectual whose work is often praised by American racialists. Despite this, his insights seem to be of dubious value. His latest article at The Occidental Observer confirms my view of him as a mere Croatian nationalist and petty racial climber. AD’s racial realization schema places him at Level 3 (he’s a lock to move into 4b). (Aren’t the OO’s readers tired of reading about Croatia, that paragon of western civilization, yet?)

A few points are all that should be necessary to discredit this individual.

Firstly, it is amusing hear a Croatian nationalist whine about victimology since Croatian nationalism profited so handsomely by portraying itself the victim of Yugoslavism.

Secondly, Sunic says, “Whites in Europe and America have to overcome the sense of territorial rootedness and intra-ethnic infighting.” Assuming his use of intra is correct (he isn’t a native English speaker, so we can’t be sure), the very fact of such infighting tells us its nature is inter-ethnic.

Thirdly, and most significantly, just how much of a white man is Tom Sunic that he feels free to lecture American racialists as an equal anyway? It’d be one thing if he were advancing a defensive racialism, in which case his concerns as a “white man” would be valid and wholly justifiable, but he isn’t. It isn’t at all clear to me what advantage a founding stock American would have in trading in his American identity for one in which he can identify with a Balkans nationalist’s heavily accented spiel.

The stages of racial realization

A man who fervently or casually believes that race doesn’t or shouldn’t matter will undergo a significant psychological transformation as he comes to understand that race does matter. The transition isn’t smooth. Its trajectory resembles the Seven Stages of Grief model, with only the “Guilt” inapplicable, and some level of “Anger” present in most stages.

The process looks something like this.

(1) Shock or Disbelief. This one’s easy and obvious. “What? I can’t believe there are still racists around in this day and age!”

(2) Superficial Denial. Okay, the racists appear to be onto something, but their views are most certainly objectively wrong – “IQ is fatally flawed.” “Racial diversity is strength.” — and the subtext of rebuttals is an angry “Stop thinking about race; there’s nothing to think about!“

(3) Bargaining. Here the plot begins to thicken. Reactions at this point very much depend on one’s own race. All people have an ethnic identity. Given the prominence of race in American culture, they have a racial identity, too, which for most (apart from blacks) is weaker and more of an identifier than an identity. When race is at least vaguely understood to matter, anger momentarily subsides and a scramble begins to properly grasp one’s racial identity and an effort to establish its excellence or defend its adequacy commences. The site “Racial Myths/Racial Reality” is one example of this. Another is the Hindoo poster “rec1man” who bores everyone in the “Steveosphere” to death with statistics confirming the superiority of his “Southern Brahmin” caste.

(4a) Anger. If bargaining fails, anger ensues. Someone’s racial identity has come up short, its adequacy cast into doubt or denied outright. “Racist scum must die!” becomes the battle cry.

(4b) Superiorism. The facts of race are true, they’re not pretty and one’s own race is clearly not the best. But it’s still better than some others! Time to lay into the fellow on the next rung down. Exemplars of this attitude are northern Italians: “Were it not for these southern scum dragging us down we’d be considered Fully White!” But others play the same game. Competition in Europe is particularly intense: “Northern” Croats stick it to Dalmatians; Serbs stick it to Albanians; Greeks stick it to Turks; and everyone sticks it to the Gypsies.[See Anthroforum for details.]

(4c) Intellectualized Denial. Post-modernism; obscurantism; obfuscation; communism.

(5) Depression. “Race and heredity being true kinda just sucks, doesn’t it? I wish I never learned a damn thing about it. Here I was, getting along nicely, and then boom, this hits me. And it’s not just about me; the whole world’s going to shit as the stupid, the close-minded, and the — well, it’s true isn’t it? — the hideous submerge the bright, the open-minded and the beautiful.”

(6) Acceptance and Hope. Biological existentialism. The best stage. A man hasn’t lived until he’s reached biological acceptance and hope. The man who has passed through the tunnel of biological despair to reach Acceptance and Hope laughs and sneers at the petty concerns and sensibilities of average people. He becomes impervious to offense. He has but one life to live and he cannot afford to permit the facts of biology to interfere with his peace of mind. He appreciates that the truth about heredity means current social arrangements are suboptimal and is amenable to explicitly racial measures to ameliorate them, but has little interest in focusing on and harping on about others’ racial qualities.

The stages are not necessarily transitory and only few make it all the way through to the end. Most individuals at present are stuck at level 1 or 2, with increasing numbers flailing about in level 3. Most “racists” reside at level 4b, their intellectual opponents at 4c; 4a comprises the losers of the bargaining process, who occasionally crib from 4c to shore up their opposition. Level 5 usually suffers in silence. And level 6, well, there’s Accidental Dissent; anyone else?

UPDATE

Firstly, these stages are always open to revision.  What I’ve attempted here is a working model of some of the stages people go through when trying to wrap their heads around the realities of race and the shortcomings of multiracialism.

With that said, I think there is a “Guilt” stage that needs to be included somewhere.  One of the traditional obstacles racialism has had to overcome is the resistance of people to thinking negatively about others.  This has been true even during times when racialist orders have been present.  One reason people hesitate to think poorly of others is that others might then think poorly of them, and that is certainly a powerful factor in multiracial society.  Another reason is, of course, is the unwillingness to “punish” people for what is not their fault, ie their inherited characteristics.  Pondering the facts of racial reality, however, often does find us veering into thinking negatively about others.  And this can produce feelings of guilt, something like, “Why o why do I let myself think so poorly of others? Wicked me.  I must do better!”

Regulating racial opinion

Political correctness insists that race does not or should not matter at all.

Some might object that the opinion “whites are racists” (ie evil) is permitted, and even sanctified, and that this contradicts the view that race doesn’t or shouldn’t matter. However, the belief that whites are evil is only a corollary of a subset of the belief that race shouldn’t matter: the belief that race can be made not to matter. Thus, for as long race appears to matter (generally, for as long racial groups achieve disparate average social outcomes), the blame for it can be laid on whites. This is possible because whites have historically considered themselves superior and have acted in the name of that belief in their superiority, and the suspicion is that they continue to. (This at least is the official justification. There is another, deeper, perhaps much more important justification, one that is never articulated, and which lies beyond the scope of this post.)

The view that race doesn’t or shouldn’t matter can only be replaced with its antithesis: the view that race does or should matter. This view introduces manifold complexities. The view that race doesn’t or shouldn’t matter is negative and simple — it tells us only what not to think and then lets us go about our business, thus allowing for an easy consensus. The view that race does or should matter is positive and complex — it tells us to think something, but leaves that something somewhat blank, rendering consensus essentially unachievable.

White nationalists and, to a lesser extent, race-realists spend a great deal of time discussing how much race matters or what it means for race to matter. White nationalism, far from presenting a united front, expends enormous energy defining itself. Its effort to do so can be summarized as an attempt to regulate racial opinion — an effort as frustrating and fruitless as herding cats. The failure to reach consensus has been so egregious that this writer has even been able to quip with some truth that few people doubted the existence of the white race until racialists tried to prove it.

Underlying the difficulty of reaching racial consensus is the fact that the reality of race poses so many more questions than it answers that the realization that race matters tends to leave people – whatever their race – swooning. That there are no easy answers, however, doesn’t mean that some answers are not better than others. Still, for the time being, the man who realizes the old verities are shot must acclimatize himself to operating in a theater of disturbing indeterminacy.

Accidental Dissent

Welcome to Accidental Dissent. The “About” page describes the blog thus: An irreverent but incisive look at race and society through the eyes of a quintessential southern European dago, hoping to concoct a brew of racial nepenthe for nordic and nigger alike.

Why “accidental” dissent? For two reasons. Firstly, because the man behind it only accidentally stumbled across the subject of race as it is discussed in what could be termed the “racialist underground.” Secondly, the title is a play on a similarly named group of blogs/publications from whose views AD also dissents (that term being “occidental”).

AD hopes to help fill the void which currently exists between the politically correct mainstream, where race is held to not matter at all, and “white nationalism,” or “the racial right,” or the “white right,” where race is taken to matter absolutely (occasionally absurdly so).

Such a position is tentatively currently held by a group calling themselves “race-realists.” AD considers their stance inadequate, for two reasons. Firstly, race-realists are often simply white nationalists pulling their punches in order to attempt to accommodate themselves to or ingratiate themselves with a mainstream audience, so their position is inherently dishonest. Secondly, race-realism describes the racial landscape but is largely silent on how or even why to alter it, which, after all, is or should be the point.

AD, in contrast, holds (alongside white nationalists) that the whole truth can and ought to be told about race. AD parts ways with white nationalists in seeking to provide a perspective from which white nationalism’s hard-hitting truths, so often wielded like sledgehammers, are reduced to effective inconsequentiality. AD believes that, despite the paradox, race is comfortably capable of meaning both everything and nothing to an individual, and that the lack of a perspective such as this is largely responsible for the reluctance of certain individuals to to take up the “racialist cause.”

AD will aim to illustrate why race matters much more than the mainstream thinks, and much less than white nationalists (or any nationalists) think, and, most importantly of all, why this isn’t anything to fear.