There are few things that will get you into trouble as quickly as talking about race. This issue is one of the hardest things for a person to become red-pilled about. Many soft-Right classical liberal-style “conservatives” may go along with limiting immigration or even criticizing democracy, but the moment you start talking about racial differences, their inner cuck comes flying to the surface. Westerners – who seem almost by nature to be xenophilic – have a very difficult time accepting realities about race which contradict the sort of wishful thinking about this issue which they learn from their schooling and from their popular culture. As such, even many so-called conservatives will manifest an unreasonable fear of reality about these things.
The perfect example of this could be seen on Twitter this past Tuesday. There is a third-tier conservative talk radio personality who broadcasts out of Charlotte, North Carolina (I live in this state and had never heard of him prior to a couple of months ago) named Bill Mitchell. He has amassed quite a following on Twitter, much of it due to his vigorous support for Donald Trump during the recent election. However, on Tuesday Mitchell had a complete, day-long Twitter freak out because he thought that some of his followers might be “racists.” This led to a series of rather ridiculous broadsides against the alt-Right, whom he characterized as horrible, horrible people because many of them are concerned about the drastic demographic changes that are being forced upon Western countries. To be concerned about the future of white people in their own countries and to recognize the defensive need for the same sort of identity politics on the part of whites that other races routinely engage in was for him apparently beyond the pale. He responded with a huge, ugly, virtue signalling cuckout.
It really was hilarious to see, in a morbid sort of way. Mitchell asserted that Trump had disowned the nationalist alt-Right (even though Trump’s top representative to Israel canceled a meeting with Israel’s foreign minister after a Swedish delegate from the “far-right” Sweden Democrats had been excluded). He apparently failed to grasp that the whole impetus for the anti-immigration stance that drove Trump’s campaign was essentially alt- Right style nationalism. Instead, and predictably, Mitchell tried to characterize all members of the alt-Right as Nazis and the like.
Personally, I think the on-going argument over who “owns” the alt-Right is somewhat ridiculous. From a purely lexical standpoint, “alt-Right” should mean exactly what it says on the tin – alternative viewpoints on the Right which are not a part of “mainstream, classically liberal” conservatism. This is a rather broad definition which can include everything from relatively tame big-L Libertarians, anti-PCers, manosphere types, and paleoconservatives, through Traditionalists, restorationists, neocameralists, neoreactionaries, HBDers, cultural nationalists, and white nationalists, all the way out to actual Nazis and neofascists. Now, all of these may be outside of the political mainstream, but it obviously doesn’t mean that all of them, or even most of them, focus on hardcore racial supremacy issues. Trying to say that they do, or trying to cast a small subset which does as if it were the entire range of positions, is simply moronic.
However, it perhaps CAN be said that many, maybe even most, of those within the broader alt-Right would subscribe to some variation on the theme of race realism. This will still be interpreted by progressives and cucks as “racism,” of course. Yet, what really binds together most race realists is not the bare matter of race itself, but rather the “realism” part. Essentially, the bare-bones Alt-Right position of race realism is nothing more than a willingness to honestly accept reality and to seek to formulate policies that take reality into account, rather than equalitarian or propositionalist magical thinking.
Let’s face it – as much as Mitchell may not like it, most people are “racist” if by that term you mean that they know that most of what we’re routinely told by the media and popular culture about racial matters is wrong. For instance, most people know that blacks commit more crime per capita than whites, even though the official Left vigourously denies this. White conservatives know this because they’re smart enough to know how to read FBI uniform crime statistics. White liberals know it because they will always put their kids into private schools rather than send them to “vibrant” public schools, if they have the option to do so. Blacks know it because they have to live in the middle of the whole mess and deal with it every day. When it comes to crime rates, the races are very unequal – and everyone knows it. Some folks won’t say so because they don’t want to have know-nothings like Bill Mitchell call them “racist,” but the objective facts (as well as the subjective experiences of thousands of Americans every day) clearly point to this conclusion.
The examples along this line which could be given are legion. However, they all revolve around a set of well substantiated facts which show us that there are indeed different races, that these races differ from each other in qualitative ways, and that when any given metric is used to compare then, these races are unequal. There are differences in IQ, in various physical abilities, and even in temperament between the races. Anyone who knows even the least little bit about human biodiversity knows this to be true. Progressives and cucks can repeat the mantra of “one human race!” all day long, but it won’t change these facts.
None of this is “white supremacy.” The races are different. They each have various strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes, these differences can work together complementarily, sometimes they won’t. Some strengths may be relatively more important from the standpoint of building and maintaining successful cultures. Nevertheless, differences across different metrics does not imply any absolute superiority.
This should not preclude white Westerners from being positive about their own heritage and race. While I firmly believe in ethnic nationalism (using the proper definition of “ethnic”), for reasons I have elucidated elsewhere I am not a white nationalist. However, the fact is that if you support and defend Western civilisation, then you necessarily also will support and defend the people who built and made that civilisation, meaning you will be supportive of the various white nationalities. The West was built by white Europeans and their descendants around the world. It was not built by Moroccans or Burmese or Guatemalans, and it cannot be sustained by them. Peoples and cultures are inseparable. People of close genetic heritage will almost always share similar culture. The two principles work together synergistically. The West is a genetic heritage as much as it is a set of related cultures. It is not some propositional unit in which a foreigner is interchangeable with a native.
These are simple facts, supported by millennia of recorded history. They remain true, no matter how much people like Bill Mitchell may try to deny them.
Thus, to preserve the West means to preserve the white race, and the diversity of cultures that exist under its overarching umbrella. Preserving the West means accepting the 14 words – “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Irrationally, this slogan is decried as “white supremacist,” yet this characterisation really makes no logical sense. A positive statement affirming a right for one race and one group of people to perpetuate itself is “supremacist”? This assertion stultifies the entire meaning of that word. Really, it’s just an expression of the same biological reality and imperative which every other race of man, and indeed every other species of creature in God’s creation, operates under.
This is why the current attack on the West consisting of the importation of millions of hostile, inassimilable foreigners from the third world is an act of attempted cultural and racial genocide. Idiots like Mitchell may naysay this, but the facts themselves make it pretty plain what is going on. The kind-hearted xenophilia of the West is being used as a weapon against it.
Fools like Mitchell may deny it, but the “refugees” and the progressives are actually quite clear as to what their goals and ambitions are. I’ll take their word for it over that of a third-rate hack on a radio talk show.
THIS is realism. This is taking the available evidence and using it to arrive at rational conclusions based on it. The irrational and ridiculous position is that of the cuckservative, who buries his head in the sand, pretending that his wishful thinking about “propositional nations” and “everyone can be an American because of our magic dirt!” will overrule fundamental realities about how the world works.
The West is worth preserving and renovating. But the West is a unique and worthy civilisation because it was built by a unique and worthy group of peoples. Only Westerners could have built the West, as evidenced by the fact that only Westerners did do so. This is not a denigration of the other civilisations of the world, many of which were and are great in their own rights and in their own ways. But the fact remains that the West was built by whites in part as a result of the aggregated set of characteristics possessed by that race and its constituent nations. Being “reality based” means accepting this truth. Race is a real thing and it has real consequences at all levels, including that of continent-spanning civilisations. Accepting this is not “racist,” it is not displaying hatred or malice toward other races. It is simply the intelligent and reasonable decision of a rational mind that refuses to let sentimental liberal delusions cloud its judgment.