The Virtue of Racism

We used to call it patriotism

“Oh, race of Franks, race from across the mountains, race beloved and chosen by God — as is clear from your many deeds — set apart from all nations by the situation of your country, your Catholic faith, and the honor of the Holy Church!” - Urban II at the Council of Clermont, preaching the First Crusade

At the very last hour, and under the most dire of circumstances, White Americans are finally re-awakening to the reality of race.

It took having their own replacement and even extinction proclaimed from the rooftops and celebrated in their faces, and nearly accomplished in fact, but it does appear finally to be happening.

However, despite the late hour and desperate stakes, many Christian and Christian-influenced Whites are reluctant to come to terms with the issue, or feel guilty about doing so because they’ve been taught from earliest childhood that to notice racial truths is naughty.

Christianity is sick with the cancer of liberalism, and thus liberalism infects the minds of many modern self-styled Christians, who hold heretical notions that their ancestors (of any denomination) would have exiled or killed them for.

Institutional Christianity has canonized the post-War liberal order, constructed by Jews, atheists and communists (but I repeat myself!). It is taken as given that liberal imperatives, at odds with two millennia of Church teaching, are now the very core of the gospels.

The highest commandment of this new creed is the noxious doctrine of anti-racism. It sits in the pantheon right next to climate ideology and the celebration of sodomites.

Most of you already know the state of the church and are unlikely to care what some effeminate pastor or lavender bishop or pedophile-protecting prelate has to say about it. But it never hurts to drive home just how evil and mendacious the modern churches are.

However, it may interest you to know what our Christian ancestors actually believed about the topic, and how closely our traditional beliefs align with our deepest moral intuitions.

What is Racism?

In the post-war liberal order, there is no worse sin than “racism.” (For White people, that is). To the modern liberal, which of course includes most conservatives, rape, murder, robbery, and even the great genocides of the 20th century pale in comparison to the moral evil of a White woman avoiding black people on public transit.

Like the rest of the liberal canon, this idiotic and vile doctrine is the inverse of the true moral law which our ancestors recognized.

We should not be surprised that, in the pre-modern order, what is now called “racism” was considered a virtue. Of course, they didn’t call it racism , because “racism” is a modern term, coined by the gay Jewish LGBT activist Magnus Hirschfeld in 1902.

Our ancestors fostered a fervent love of their kith and kin, their people and their native land, in preference to all others. They called this noble sentiment “patriotism.”

When they gave preference to blood relations over strangers, and acted out the adage that “charity begins at home,” they were living a Christian as well as a natural virtue.

Now, some might object: “That’s not what racism is! Racism is hating other people just for the color of their skin!”

This objection would be valid if anyone used the word that way. But that is almost never the case. The post-WW2 Regime has made a science of the abuse of language and has succeeded in tying any racial pragmatism or preference for one’ s own kind to irrational and unbridled hatred of others. On top of this, in the modern liberal lexicon, the term “hate” means whatever the Regime needs it to mean at any given point.

Not only that, but we all know that modern liberals and conservatives would absolutely describe a fervent love of your own race, in preference to others, and a desire to be around them and put their interests first, as “racism“. So it is entirely fair to deal with the term “racism” on this basis.

With that said, let’s look at how the modern sin of “racism” corresponds to the ancient virtue of patriotism.

Racism is Patriotism

Patriotism is another term that has been co-opted to manipulate us into doing the bidding of our enemies. In modern parlance, “patriotism” is a term used to rally people behind the government in support of foreign wars, to support mass surveillance, and to encourage “unity” with those who want us looted and killed and our children brainwashed to hate us.

Our ancestors didn’t see it this way. For them, patriotism was the love of your people and of your fatherland. And who are your people? Your kith and kin, your family, extended family and neighbors and the community that they form. This is the natural political unit. It is a biological relationship. Aristotle says in the Politics that the polis is a natural extension of kinship, and that it cannot exceed the number of people whom you can know.

Aquinas says: “We are therefore bound out of charity to love those more who are nearer to us.” and “We ought therefore to love more those who are more closely united to us.” (Summa Theologiae II–II, Q.26, Article 6)

“After God, a man’s chief love is due to his parents and to his fatherland.” (Summa Theologiae II–II, Q.101, Article 1)

Aquinas teaches us that our obligations in charity extend outward from us in a concentric circle, which we call the Ordo Amoris.

Contrast that to the contemporary situation where we are told that our “fellow countrymen” are whomever the government of a sprawling continent-sized empire have permitted to reside geographically within its borders.

Kinship is the Root of the Natural Polity

Obviously, a political community that is an outgrowth of kinship and familiarity is fundamentally a bond of blood. It is a sort of biological organism. Its boundaries may be porous, but they are real. This doesn’t mean outsiders can’t be adopted and integrated on an individual basis, but it does mean that blood is far more important than geography or surface-level assimilation.

This becomes even more obvious when we look at the words used by our ancestors to describe a nation or people.

When Aquinas uses the word patria it is often translated as country, but since that term is so watered down in English a more accurate translation would be “fatherland.” The word Patria is from the Latin word pater meaning father. Patria is “the land of my fathers.”

The word nation itself comes from the Latin nasci which means “to be born.” One is part of a nation by virtue of being born into it, not geographically but genetically.

Aquinas, following ancient authors, also uses the term gentiles to refer to “the nations.” The Latin term gens is the root of the word genetic, and one is part of a gens by virtue of his birth.

This was how our ancestors viewed their membership in a people, a nation. It was a function of blood, of kinship, and of community.

We can see in Scripture the Divine plan for man to live as nations or peoples within defined boundaries:

“And (He) hath made of one, all mankind, to dwell upon the whole face of the earth, determining appointed times, and the limits of their habitation.” (Acts 17:26)

“When the Most High divided the nations: when he separated the sons of Adam, he appointed the bounds of people according to the number of the children of Israel.” (Deut 32:8)

From Nation to State To Empire

Part of the project of the Enlightenment was the liberation of man from all of the old bonds that interfered with his individual liberty. As Robert Nisbet shows in The Quest for Community, the Enlightenment ushered in the age of the citizen and the nation state. Man, now seen as an atomized individual, no longer related to other men through the natural connections of family, kinship and community, but through his role as a citizen in the nation-state. At this point the nation-states of Europe still maintained their ethnic character, but the key elements of political life had been sufficiently abstracted as to make the next step inevitable.

Once man was re-classed as a “citizen,” with his primary loyalty removed from real community to imagined community, his energies could be redirected to the ends of the political elite. All those noble passions and energies which in former times had been dedicated to the wellbeing of family and community were now dedicated to the hubris of empire and the aggrandizement of the political class.

From there the final step of alienation was almost inevitable. The hubris and greed of the political class could not be satisfied with hegemony over one people, so the great nations became sprawling, multi-ethnic empires. The highly abstract faux nationalism that resulted was easy for the media masters to manipulate toward their own ends, culminating in the world wars.

With the collapse of their imperial strength and moral authority after this barbarous fratricidal inferno, the West succumbed to the deadly fallacy of “civic nationalism.”

Nowhere was this coup more complete than in the United States, whose Jewish 20th century elites astroturfed the incoherent and suicidal notion of the “propositional nation.”

Civic Nationalism

Civic Nationalism is, prima facie, a contradiction in terms. As we saw above, a nation is a people. To negate the “people” component by making it generic to anyone is to undefine it.

We are told by civic nationalists that America is an idea, a “propositional nation.” But if this is the case, why do people need to come here to experience America? Vivek Ramiswamy says it’s the constitution that makes America great and he thinks it would be better with more Indians. So why doesn’t he work to implement the American system in India, that way he can have 1.5 Billion Indians to work with? If it’s so great he should want that for his home country, should he not?

If it’s the constitution that makes America desirable, then why not move to Liberia? Its constitution is a carbon copy of the US. And Liberia is teeming with beautiful brown diversity! It’s basically a CivNat paradise!

But of course, the Constitution has very little to do with it. Or rather, the Constitution is simply the written expression of the political customs of a particular People. It is the people, not paper, which make a country.

Foreigners acknowledge this through migration patterns. Despite their venomous racial animus against Whites, they move out of brown countries and into White countries.

Is there something magical about the dirt in White countries? No, it is that in White countries they are able to exploit the loopholes of Western liberalism and loot the accumulated capital of the host population, both directly by using and defrauding subsidies, and indirectly, by gaining access to “meritocratic” institutions and then using their power to promote their co-ethnics to the detriment of the White host population.

The pernicious doctrine of Civic Nationalism would have us give our love and loyalty first and foremost to an abstraction, a piece of paper, over our flesh and blood kin. It would have us open our borders and invite hordes of invaders who do not share our customs, our history, our language or our values. Since the Tower of Babel humans acknowledged that the attempt to meld the entire human race into one homogenous multi-cultural blob was a dangerous hubris.

In order to be a people we must have something real and non-arbitrary which binds us together. If anyone can be an American, no one is an American.

If Indians looking to scam the university system have just as much right to America as the descendants of those who carved civilization out of a hostile wilderness, then the concept of “right” has no meaning.

Civic Nationalism is just Globalism re-packaged in American-sounding phrases.

So now that we’ve talked about how we arrived at the liberal multicultural consensus, let’s look at what it has cost us.

The Outcome of Multiracialism

Predictably, despite enormous effort and expense on the part of White Americans, the attempt at integration of the peoples into one melting pot has been a catastrophic failure.

Law abiding people cannot go on public transit or in public places in US cities without fear of being harassed by foreigners. Women cannot go out alone for fear of being raped by blacks or migrants.

Major US cities have murder rates higher than Sub-Saharan Africa.

This has led to the erosion of real patriotism and the collapse of public trust.

How can you believe in the judicial system when foreigners sit in judgment over you? How can you have a jury of your peers when the jury consists of people from the other side of the planet? How can you have a community when your children can’t go outside safely?

The Issues are Exacerbated by Racial Animosity

As a result of the communist propaganda that passes for education from pre-school to college, black and brown people are taught from their earliest years to hate and resent White people. The results are stark. Blacks are thirteen times more likely to kill Whites than vice versa. Their resentment and anger against Whites as such is virulent and public. From HR meetings scolding Whites for their unacknowledged “privilege” to the open celebration of black on White murder, White Americans are regularly confronted with active hostility from non-Whites. In this environment, how is coexistence and social trust possible?

Black people have lived in the United States for four centuries and their homicide rate is an order of magnitude higher than Whites. Of course, dishonest race communists will blame this on “racism and oppression,” but the black violent crime rate increased after the Civil Rights movement. It dropped again after the racist 90’s crime bill, and increased again since BLM.

Black crime has made cities unlivable, forcing White families to flee to the suburbs, with a cascading chain of pernicious social effects.

This could all be avoided if we had freedom of association and laws were enforced regardless of the race of the criminals. But because we have adopted “anti-racism” as the highest civic virtue, our cities are hollowed out, communities shattered, and our civilization held hostage by the criminal class, who are the clientele of the ruling liberal elite.

It’s easy to see why White people don’t want to live around non-Whites. Given their declared hostility and their demonstrated preference for harming us, it would be gravely imprudent for a father to put his family in harm’s way by living near brown or black people if he can avoid it. Consequently White families and communities pay large additional costs to live in suburbs, foregoing the economies of scale we would have in livable cities, and which we used to have.

Now add to this the massive influx of third world migrants, and you have complete chaos. In the last generation alone tens of millions of third world migrants have poured into the United States, looking to benefit from the first world infrastructure our ancestors built. They do not share our values. They, unlike us, do not embrace impersonal pro-sociality. They are loyal to family, clan and to their home countries. We can hardly fault them for this, but when their clannish third worldism meets an open society, the result will be the destruction of the latter, to the detriment of everyone. Global Zimbabwe is not a good outcome, even for the Zimbabweans.

The reality is, there are simply too many people from too different cultures to be integrated. And this is before we even take into account woke programming.

If we consider multiculturalism as a naive project of humanitarianism, it has failed spectacularly. If we consider it as a studied program of hostile subversives to destroy Western Civilization, it has succeeded beyond anyone’s wildest dreams.

The only solution is the total remigration of foreigners and the return of freedom of association so that Blacks and Whites can exclude each other at will. The alternative to this is that White men lay down and accept the inevitable expropriation and genocide that has taken place in every country where Whites have become a minority.

Race and Culture are Inextricable

I can already hear Conservatives rushing to disclaim “But it’s not race, it’s culture!”

This betrays another unexamined Enlightenment assumption, namely the blank slate. The idea that race and culture are not intimately connected is a delusion that is only possible if we believe humans are born as a blank slate, with endless possibilities given sufficient cultural enrichment.

Of course, such an idea is ludicrous on its face. We are literally made out of our ancestors. Every part of us is deeply connected to our predecessors. We are biological organisms, so this should come as no surprise.

In addition to the logical case, we also have ample empirical data to debunk this Rousseauan myth, thanks to high quality twin studies.

Studies of twins separated at birth allow us to compare people with identical genetics, but separate environments and upbringings. These studies powerfully show that nearly every trait we would find to be important, including IQ, criminality, political ideology, and even religious practice owes much more to genetic factors than it does to upbringing or environment.

If it needs to be said, this does not imply that genetics are deterministic. These are averages, and humans have free will. What it does show is that descriptive statements about genetic groups of people, whether a particular family or a racial group, can be accurate and predictive, which gives them meaningful explanatory power.

Racial differences also exist on a continuum. Obviously, races which are more similar have more potential to integrate. Individuals of one race who happen to have more traits associated with another race can more easily integrate into it.

The United States was able to receive and integrate White Christian immigrants from all over Europe. Despite much initial friction, they were ultimately able to coexist and have some degree of cooperation because of their shared European blood, culture and history. The United States was still a farcically large polity which needed (and needs) to be drastically decentralized to achieve natural politics; but people were able to live in peace enough to have a civilization.

Sixty years of disaster demonstrates that this is not the case for non-Whites.

What about our “Shared Humanity” ?

At this juncture many might object “what about our shared humanity? Isn’t it hateful and inhuman to suggest we can’t live together peacefully?”

This kind of objection points to some critical assumptions that underlie the liberal worldview. And the answer to the question depends on what we understand by “shared humanity’ and what we mean by “together.”

What does it mean to be human? A human is a rational animal. We are ontologically separated from the other animals by our capacity for reason. We use language to communicate and deliberate with each other. We are capable of abstraction. We can exchange ideas.

All of these are abilities that humans as such have the theoretical ability to develop. Of course, not all humans do develop them. Children have these powers only in potency. Some have developmental issues that prevent them from ever fully developing. And some cultures develop these abilities to a greater degree than others.

But just having the capacity to deliberate isn’t much to work with. Just because it is theoretically possible doesn’t mean that you will be able to deliberate with someone from another culture productively.

When people talk about Shared Humanity, they actually mean something much more robust, the idea that all humans are equally capable of being a Good Person™. To the Western mind, what we consider to be a Good Person™ is actually a very specific bundle of impersonal pro-social behaviors which is quite unique to us, but which we often impute to humanity at large.

In The Weirdest People in the World Joseph Henrich demonstrates the unique set of influences that led to Western European people developing the peculiar form of impersonal pro-sociality that makes the first world (particularly the Anglosphere) possible. Most other societies never developed the high-trust attitudes of Western Europe and remained largely tribal. Western White people are a very small exception to the global rule of human behavior. So we should not expect for our unusual and highly contingent social arrangement to survive contact with large numbers of people from cultures who did not have this cultural evolution.

The reality is there is enormous diversity among human beings.

Christians believe that human beings come from a common ancestor and that we share a basic human capacity for reason and therefore a spiritual dignity. We can also recognize that, developing in different regions of the globe under very different conditions, we developed very different cultural norms which are now largely genetic. Religion doesn’t solve this. Religion is part of culture but by no means the entirety of it. An African Christian is still African, with African predilections and cultural norms. As such, it makes a lot more sense for him to live with other African Christians in Africa than with European Christians in Ohio. Critically, he has a right to live with other Africans, but no right to live with Europeans, and vice versa.

We can also observe that, historically, mass migration from one area of the globe to another has never been accompanied without massive conflict with the existing populations. We have no reason to believe that it is different this time around. We do not have to deny our “shared humanity” to recognize any of this.

The Christian Case for Remigration and Ethnonationalism

Theory aside, what is to be done? Remigration of course. But this will be a gargantuan task, which will not happen quickly and will not happen at all without a significant hardening of political will. And currently the political will to remove migrants appears to be weak.

And it is weak because too many White people are still cucked by liberal ideology and particularly by its infiltration and capture of Christian institutions. Christian organizations, most notably the Catholic Church (post Vatican II), have pushed mass migration and criticized any attempt by White people to assert self-determination. This is because the high places are held by the enemy.

At this point in the game, most right-wing Christians ought to have re-discovered the pious Medieval expedient for such times as ours known affectionately as “Ignoring the Hierarchy™” and thus probably don’t care about the hectoring of effete e-priests and luxurious pedophile-enabling prelates.

But for those who still have hang-ups about it, let’s take a look at what the Church traditionally has taught about the subject.

Reconquista

Possibly the most powerful assertion of the right of a particular ethnic people to secure their land against foreigners is the Spanish Reconquest. After the onslaught of Islamic invasion in the 8th century the Visigothic Christians of Spain had been reduced to the tiny Kingdom of Asturias in the northern mountains of the peninsula. Nevertheless, they never relinquished their claim to the entire peninsula.

The Church not only supported this claim, but actively worked to encourage other Europeans to help them re-take the peninsula. This war went on for 7 centuries, and at no point did the Church acknowledge the right of the invaders to be in Spain.

In Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain historian Joseph O’Callaghan shows that the Reconquista was in fact a Crusade, in which the participants received indulgences. This war was explicitly to remove the race of the Moors from the Iberian peninsula. Conversions happened, but they were not a primary goal, and converting to Christianity did not, by itself, entitle a Moor to continue living in Iberia.

So we have a 7 century long war of what amounts to ethnic cleansing, in support of a centuries-old claim of ethnic self-determination, which is not only supported by the Church, but made into a Crusade, complete with indulgences. And this status lasted until 1963.

Urban II

For those who are squeamish about racial identity as Christians, please understand that this isn’t actually a Christian concept, but a modern liberal concept that was added to Christianity very recently in a very intentional and dishonest way.

The Church has a long history of treating people as races both in positive and negative terms.

In his speech launching the first Crusade, Urban II addressed the French audience as “you race of Franks… beloved and chosen by God” and refers to the Saracens as “an accursed race, wholly alienated from God.”

We can see that, far from condemning racial identity, the Church even went so far as to call certain races blessed and others accursed.

Pius XI

We find a striking modern example from what is likely an unexpected corner. Pius XI in his encyclical Mit Brenender Sorge, directed at Hitler’s regime, while condemning them for violating the Concordat by shutting down public worship and infringing on parental rights of education, fully acknowledged the right of the German people to exercise ethnic self-determination in their homeland. Specifically he says “No one would think of preventing young Germans establishing a true ethnical community in a noble love of freedom and loyalty to their country.” (Emphasis mine.)

Pius XI was not a particularly based pope, and this is an encyclical directed at the Nazis, so if we were to find a condemnation of ethnonationalism before Vatican II, it would be here. Instead we find a clear endorsement of the idea that a polity can and should be based on real ties of kinship rather than on abstractions.

Individualism vs Collectivism

I can hear the lolberts object: “But this is all collectivist rhetoric! We’re all individuals and should be judged as such.”

Two things: Firstly, the answer to this is both simple and obvious. We deal with individuals as individuals and with groups as groups. Some questions pertain to individuals and some pertain to groups. We’re talking about a political question of ethnic self-determination, not a discussion of whether you should have black friends. If you know someone personally, you are obviously in a position to interact with him as an individual. But if you are deciding what kind of neighborhood or what kind of polity you want to live in, now you are dealing with groups, and so group characteristics come into play.

The thing that really sticks out about this kind of objection to White identity or racial consciousness is its total dishonesty and one-sidedness. No one dares level such a criticism at Jewish identity or black identity or any other. It is not only socially acceptable but obligatory for non-White races to see themselves as a race and recognize and work toward their common interest. And this is the historical norm.

Blacks are happy to resort to collectivism when bringing up slavery or Jim Crow and demanding reparations. Jews are happy to do it with pogroms and the Most Important Event In History™ . But as soon as we start talking about how they have acted against Whites as a group, all of a sudden they’re radical individualists.

If non-Whites want to be treated as individuals, they can drop 100% of their own collective identity grift, and reverse every policy which is based on it. And return the ill-gotten gains taken in the name of “equity.” Then we can go back to just being individuals. Until then, White identity is every bit as legitimate as every other identity.

And this is all rather a moot point anyway, since the very concept of individualism is a European and peculiarly Anglo construct. It arose under the particular conditions of highly homogenous, high-trust societies. It cannot survive contact with the rest of the world in an “open society.” This much is made painfully clear by the last few decades.

Legitimacy and self-determination

Democracy was always a very tenuous notion, little more than a veil for oligarchic control. But to the extent that it is useful as a barometer for popular will, it is rendered perverse and fraudulent when the elite can simply replace or dilute the population in order to arrive at the democratic result they want (assuming the elections are even real.)

The entire program of mass migration was done against the will of the host population. It has never once been popular. It has never been placed before the people for their consent, and in fact has been done directly against their will.

The American Revolution justified itself on the basis of self-determination. But this foundational political right has been denied to White Americans ever since politicians decided to dilute us with an unwelcome influx of foreigners. You can draw the obvious conclusion for yourself.

What is an Anti-Racist?

If, as we have seen, racism is the same as traditional patriotism, and is a natural virtue, what is anti-racism? It is the negation of all of the above. It is the assertion that you have no special obligation to those closer to you by blood, that you have the same obligations to a complete stranger that hates you and wants you dead as you do to your own people. It is the denial that White people are a distinct race and that we have a right to self-determination in our own lands. It is a genocidal and suicidal belief system.

Understand that when someone says “I am an anti-racist” they are saying that they are a traitor, in the oldest and most elemental sense of the word. We should treat them as such.

What is To Be Done?

Racial self-determination doesn’t mean we necessarily have to achieve a perfectly racially pure society. It just means that Whites deserve a land where they are free and can determine whom they live around and what the rules are, just like every other nation. We may allow some foreigners to live with us, but they can never have power over us.

In concrete, this means the remigration of all illegal aliens, along with fake refugees, anchor babies and others who took advantage of loopholes in a high-trust system. It means the repeal of Hart-Celler and the Civil Rights Act and a return to freedom of association where all people can discriminate on any basis they choose, including race.

Of course, such goals are realistically unattainable under the current order, since we have no meaningful voice in our government. Every election cycle we are presented with two sets of elites, both blackmailed by the same people, who offer different flavors of the same destructive policies. Vote for Trump on a platform of remigration, and you get infinite H1B’s, 600,000 Chinese students, and amnesty for illegal workers in certain industries. The Regime is intent on extracting the very last of our resources and distributing them to our enemies in order to keep themselves in power until the last possible moment. There is no voting solution to this, certainly not on the federal level.

It’s time we face up to that and start thinking about what comes next. Will you consign your children to living in the North American version of South Africa or Zimbabwe? Forget other countries, we only have to look at American inner cities to see what will become of us if non-Whites become a majority.

The only peaceful option is National Divorce. At this stage, imposing a genuinely right-wing vision on the entire continent-sized country is unlikely. It is also unnecessary. Concentrating in friendlier areas and working toward their independence is a much more realistic option and goes in the direction that things are already heading. If right-wingers can somehow take over the federal government and enact the above then great, but I wouldn’t count on it. Support those who try, but plan for division.

If National Divorce proves impracticable, the other option is obvious. The option that is the historical norm, but which we are supposed to believe can never possibly happen, or else you’re a FED or a LARPER! We’ve reached the End of History after all, so how could anything ever happen?

Well, Chud, if National Divorce doesn’t happen, then the alternative to making something HAPPEN is to live as a second-class citizen (more likely just a slave) in a Zimbabwe-like hellscape while your children ask you “Why didn’t you do anything?”

You owe it to yourself to think about that question ahead of time, and decide if your present comfort is worth hearing that accusatory refrain from your progeny until you die.

Choose wisely, Chud.