When does pride in your race cross the line?

[United Gnosis]

The simple reality is that you would never say that to a Black person and deny his identity.

Quite to the contrary, I would say that to a Black person or to any other person definining themselves on identitarian grounds, because I do not see how the modern concept of "identity" actually relates to Identity. Your identity is as fundamental as the existence of the universe, not something that can be denied by the opinions of - anyone, really.

I disagree that 'man', 'woman', 'irish white', 'afro-cuban american' or any other such identitarian label constitutes Identity. Calling BS on your adoption of racial identitarian social constructs doesn't constitute denying identity. I'm just saying you're looking in the wrong place.

 

[PaleFace]

I disagree that 'man', 'woman', 'irish white', 'afro-cuban american' or any other such identitarian label constitutes Identity

You'd get along well with the pronouns crowd. They too believe in eschewing any and all identity and attacking those who still cling to outdated concepts like science, biology and common sense.

 

[United Gnosis]

Puerto Rico, Ghana and the shtetls of Eastern Europe. Perhaps you came from one of them, Joe?

I never advocated marches of any kind. I advocated a simple positive and healthy outlook for White people. We should be happy of who we are and stand up for our identity when it is attacked, whether we be French, American, Russian, etc.

This shouldn't be a problem for a healthy, normal person to understand and accept. You immediately started implying that I am a Nazi, which is a standard CRT and Leftist talking point. Literally, anyone who disagrees with me is a NAZZZIIII!

Any healthy love of one's people is pathologized. It's twisted and sick. Rethink your biases, Joe.

This is interesting. Great victim playing. You speak of forming a healthy White Identity, but now you're the victim because you didn't define it.

I'll underline that you haven't answered any of my questions trying to understand what you meant by 'Whiteness'. Maybe you'd have to explain how it is possible at all to have a 'healthy racial identity' before accusing us for not adopting one.

 

[psychegram]

You're definitely right in underlining the multistage nature of the process, and that a proper, mostly sovereign identity must be constructed before the ground can be prepared for the next phase. I just don't see how the social construct of racial identities even start to help with that. Not that they even remotedly apply to reality, unless if you start to intersect down so many layers that the racial group identity still matters anyway. Of course I'd wish to fortify that girl's sense of identity - but I'd seek to ground it in individual, incarnated experience, both more intimate and real that group identities or self-concept. A sport like rock-climbing, taking the gramps on an outing, a walk in the forest, real grounding experiences don't need conceptual analysis to bring fruits.

Obviously I'm not saying the girl who's cutting herself needs to learn to appreciate her ancestry. That's not the analogy I was making. The point was rather that the medicine needs to match the injury.

Historically, a certain degree of pride in and love for one's group is a necessary element of a healthy identity. That doesn't just mean race (according to the contemporary definition); it includes all levels: family, nation, species, etc. If there's an interruption at any one of those levels, I think it has a deleterious effect on other levels as well. Thus, someone who has learned to really hate their parents often has a difficult time building a healthy emotional foundation: since you came from your parents, if you hate them it's hard not to hate yourself a little bit, too.

Regarding race being a social construct, this isn't really true; or rather, it's something of a language game. Historically, race meant something much closer to clan or even family. Later it came to apply to wider ethnic groups, e.g. the Germans are a race, the Celts are a race, etc. Later still it came to apply to continental origin, hence Asian, black, white, etc.

The 'social construct' argument partly relies on this historical mutability of the word's definition. However, each of these is an actual, existing social group, with cultural and biological ties. That the definition changed to encompass wider groups of looser (i.e. historically more ancient) ties doesn't change that; and really it just reflects the widening perspective of the species, from the immediate valley of your clan to the entire world. Germans and Celts got folded into White because, once there's a global perspective, it's quite obvious that they have more in common biologically and culturally than either to with the Bantu or the !Kung (who get folded into black). It's really just a question of granularity.

'Social construct' as a term is often used to strip validity from something, as it implies that it isn't real and is therefore of no value. However, we are social animals; it is precisely in the social sphere that we find meaning. This Forum is itself a social construct; that clearly doesn't imply that it lacks value, or that it isn't real, or that it's meaningless.

 

[PaleFace]

Great victim playing

White people are routinely demonized in the media and attacked in politics, so its not "playing". There is a growing trend of hate crimes directed at vulnerable Whites. This is a reality.

Is a woman who literally just got raped and speaks out about it "victim-playing"?

Maybe you'd have to explain how it is possible at all to have a 'healthy racial identity' before accusing us for not adopting one.

I can't be sure if you're being serious or not. You just admitted earlier in the thread that you don't even believe that a "man" or woman" is a valid category. How can I debate someone who thinks nothing can be categorized or delineated a priori?

So from what I understand, there can't be a healthy racial or gender identity in a person because these categories are made up, correct? And you believe that Gurdjieff and the C's support this claim?

 

[United Gnosis]

White people are routinely demonized in the media and attacked in politics, so its not "playing".

Is a woman who literally just got raped and speaks out about it "victim-playing"?

I can't be sure if you're being serious or not. You just admitted earlier in the thread that you don't even believe that a "man" or woman" is a valid category. How can I debate someone who thinks nothing can be categorized or delineated a priori?

So from what I understand, there can't be a healthy racial or gender identity in a person because these categories are made up, correct? And you believe that Gurdjieff and the C's support this claim?

I don't see how 'man' and 'woman' constitutes fundamental identity. Your second statement does not follow. Categorization and extremely specific articulation are vital to proper intellectual hygiene, and yes, I believe that Gurdjieff made it very clear that crystallization is to be conducted on the proper foundetations, on a fundamental truth. That is exactly why I challenged your position. It does not compute. Which is why I'm asking:

What would 'healthy White racial identity' look like?

 

[PaleFace]

Regarding race being a social construct, this isn't really true; or rather, it's something of a language game. Historically, race meant something much closer to clan or even family. Later it came to apply to wider ethnic groups, e.g. the Germans are a race, the Celts are a race, etc. Later still it came to apply to continental origin, hence Asian, black, white, etc.

And what's wrong with loving one's extended family ie. one's people?

If a mother loved the children of another family more or the same as her own, she would be considered a deviant and sick.

And yet, well, here we are. People from the same extended family, clan, tribe, are told that they cannot display preference for one another... but only if they are White, of course.

 

[PaleFace]

What would 'healthy White racial identity' look like?

It would look like ancient Greece, Tsarist Russia, Merovingian France, Renaissance Italy, merry old England. Basically any White country before the World Wars and the great changes that they engendered.

It would look like a place where people knew their neighbors and could leave the doors unlocked. Kids could bike and play in the streets and be safe because watchful grannies and aunties kept an eye on them from the windows. People would speak the same language and ate traditional, healthy foods. They would get married and have large families and be encouraged to do so, helped out by the extended family and the community. It would be a place where people could grow and become strong, where people knew their ancient myths and poems and kept the old traditions alive.

What a horrible, dark and racist vision, I know.

 

[Joe]

What part is bollocks?

All of it.

Please be specific.

See above.

Are Whites demonized in the media, yes or no?

Yeah, but it's no biggie.

Are White countries experiencing mass, non-stop immigration from non-White countries, yes or no?

A bit, but it's no biggie.

Are Whites reproducing below replacement rates, yes or no?

Are you?

Will there be any White people in 2100, yes or no?

Why just dismiss me without addressing any of my concerns, or refuting any of them? Saying White people don't exist therefore they aren't being replaced is just tactical sophistry that is never applied to any other ethnic group, be it Tibetans or Tutsis or some indigenous tribe somewhere. Double standards at play here.

So much projection and assumption. You're in the wrong bar. See ya.

 

[United Gnosis]

And what's wrong with loving one's extended family ie. one's people?

If a mother loved the children of another family more or the same as her own, she would be considered a deviant and sick.

And yet, well, here we are. People from the same extended family, clan, tribe, are told that they cannot display preference for one another... but only if they are White, of course.

I'm sorry. I didn't listen to Joe and kept participating. But you are indeed projecting lots of things that have never been said. Like that last affirmation. You are ranting against scarecrows. This is not what we believe at all. Speaking for myself, I believe in - coming up with words on the spot - radical distributed sovereignty, I'd call it.

I'd believe the social contract should be preference-agnostic, but sovereign citizens should be sovereign. Do what you will, and act upon whichever preferences you see fit. I just don't think group identitarian concepts are relevant. The group identities exist as they are, the families, villages, nations, travelers and settlers - these were as they are. Why do you need to abstract them away into imprecise approximations?

A 'black' would be the first to say, 'black is offensive, i'm a nubian african' or some other more precise identity, but you don't care to crush all 'White' people under the same label?

 

[PaleFace]

All of it.



See above.



Yeah, but it's no biggie.



A bit, but it's no biggie.



Are you?







So much projection and assumption. You're in the wrong bar. See ya.

Yikes.

Imagine laughing at someone concerned that his people won't survive the coming century like some kind of a psychopath.

On a forum that talks about political pathocracy/pomerology no less.

Just imagine..

 

[Joe]

Puerto Rico, Ghana and the shtetls of Eastern Europe. Perhaps you came from one of them, Joe?

All of them, actually.

I never advocated marches of any kind. I advocated a simple positive and healthy outlook for White people. We should be happy of who we are and stand up for our identity when it is attacked, whether we be French, American, Russian, etc.

You really should advocate marches, they clearly work.

This shouldn't be a problem for a healthy, normal person to understand and accept. You, however, immediately started implying that I am a Nazi, which is a standard CRT and Leftist talking point. Literally, anyone who disagrees with me is a NAZZZIIII!

You're too stupid to be a Nazi.

Any healthy love of one's people is pathologized. It's twisted and sick. Rethink your biases, Joe.

You're right, it's my white privilege that allows me to realize you're a nut. I'll check it.

 

[PaleFace]

but you don't care to crush all 'White' people under the same label?

White is just an overarching label, its not meant by me to crush anyone.

This is not a hard concept to understand - some categories fit into other larger categories. Some are more broad, others more specific. There are different kinds of Whites ie Slavs, Celts, Germans, etc.

We do this with biology. Take a lion - well, you can start with its species and move out, eventually calling it an animal. By calling the Lion an animal as a form of shorthand instead of referring to it as a "big cat" or w/e I'm not crushing the Lion lol. You're grasping at straws here. A child could understand this simple concept.

 

[PaleFace]

You're right, it's my white privilege that allows me to realize you're a nut. I'll check it.

You just admitted that you're not White though?

You're too stupid to be a Nazi.

You must be Jewish lol.

You really should advocate marches, they clearly work.

No?

All of them, actually.

Explains a lot about you. You're too stupid to be White)

 

[Joe]

And yet, well, here we are. People from the same extended family, clan, tribe, are told that they cannot display preference for one another... but only if they are White, of course.

Dude, you're missing the point, massively. Unlike you, none of us here actually care what we're "told" we can and cannot do. It's irrelevant to us. We do what we want and need to regardless of what goes on in the world or what the media or govt. "says". You, on the other hand, have taken the bait and are very much playing in the dirt in this mixtus orbis. Go do it somewhere else.