This is what I tell everybody. Substitute white for black (or vice versa) in your statement. Do you consider the new statement to be racist? If so, the original statement is also racist.
It's a statement that is equally valid for any group. Whether or not one deems it "racist" because it prefers one's own racial group is like saying that it's a bad thing that one prefers one's own family over that of someone else. All people are expected to value their own family over someone else's family. It's perfectly natural and expected. But when you extend that to your extended family, your "racial group" or the larger genetic population you come from, suddenly it's some malignant trait.
Thus racism used to more accurately be described as ascribing inherent superiority to someone based on race alone. For example that any white person was inherently better than any black person on account of race alone, and it was statements like these that were echoed by the founders of the confederacy in the US when they made statements like this:
[I]ts foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
That was made by the Vice President of the Confederacy 2 weeks before the outbreak of the Civil War.
But simply having an in-group preference for your own kin, and having it be stronger in relation to how close that relation is, does not mean that you think any individual from your own in group must be smarter, or more moral, or stronger than any individual from one of the other groups. It's simply that on a general basis you wish to work to the benefit of your own group first, or that you prefer to be around people from your own group.
So would I have a problem with
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for black children."
or
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for Asian children."
or
"We must secure the existence of our people and a future for native American children."
?
No. They're all perfectly valid arguments for those within those groups wishing to preserve their own people, and potentially their languages, culture, history, etc... but specifically at the most basic level, the very survival of their species at all.
No healthy group should wish to be driven to functional extinction, to remain at best as nothing more than a few remnant bits of DNA in the genomes of the people who conquered you through reproductive attrition, like the Neanderthal are today... existing as nothing more than 2 or 3 percent of the genomes of non-African humans.
Where we run into problems is when one group starts colonizing another group and outbreeding them. So people had a right to push back when Europeans were colonizing their lands and wiping out their people.
But the situation we're in today is completely the opposite, with the only countries being systematically invaded by millions of people per year being the homelands of whites and the world leading countries they created. ONLY whites. Not Latinos, not Asians, not the Middle East, not Africa (except by the Chinese.)
But nobody in the west is pushing for or defending the mass colonization of anyone else, or claiming that any other countries need to be diversified (although we're starting to see the left rumble about Japan, as it's a prime example of a beautiful homogeneous society with almost zero crime as a result of their homogeneity and culture. And since ethnonationalists point to Japan as an example of why it's a good thing, the left is starting to want to destroy Japan with multiculturalism now...)
But generally speaking, only whites are held up as an example of a people who owe it to the rest of the world to allow themselves to be invaded and outbred, wiped from history. Nobody else faces remotely the level of pressure to not only allow it, but to help facilitate it, pay for it, welcome it, etc. To put our heads on the chopping block and beg for the axe to drop to pay for some ancestral sin.
Apparently I'm not up to date on the stormfront lingo.
I would like you to clearly explain to me what is wrong with that statement. Don't avoid it, please justify precisely why that is a bad statement.
Thank you.
This is what I tell everybody. Substitute white for black (or vice versa) in your statement. Do you consider the new statement to be racist? If so, the original statement is also racist.
It's a statement that is equally valid for any group. Whether or not one deems it "racist" because it prefers one's own racial group is like saying that it's a bad thing that one prefers one's own family over that of someone else. All people are expected to value their own family over someone else's family. It's perfectly natural and expected. But when you extend that to your extended family, your "racial group" or the larger genetic population you come from, suddenly it's some malignant trait.
Thus racism used to more accurately be described as ascribing inherent superiority to someone based on race alone. For example that any white person was inherently better than any black person on account of race alone, and it was statements like these that were echoed by the founders of the confederacy in the US when they made statements like this:
That was made by the Vice President of the Confederacy 2 weeks before the outbreak of the Civil War.
But simply having an in-group preference for your own kin, and having it be stronger in relation to how close that relation is, does not mean that you think any individual from your own in group must be smarter, or more moral, or stronger than any individual from one of the other groups. It's simply that on a general basis you wish to work to the benefit of your own group first, or that you prefer to be around people from your own group.
So would I have a problem with
or
or
?
No. They're all perfectly valid arguments for those within those groups wishing to preserve their own people, and potentially their languages, culture, history, etc... but specifically at the most basic level, the very survival of their species at all.
No healthy group should wish to be driven to functional extinction, to remain at best as nothing more than a few remnant bits of DNA in the genomes of the people who conquered you through reproductive attrition, like the Neanderthal are today... existing as nothing more than 2 or 3 percent of the genomes of non-African humans.
Where we run into problems is when one group starts colonizing another group and outbreeding them. So people had a right to push back when Europeans were colonizing their lands and wiping out their people.
But the situation we're in today is completely the opposite, with the only countries being systematically invaded by millions of people per year being the homelands of whites and the world leading countries they created. ONLY whites. Not Latinos, not Asians, not the Middle East, not Africa (except by the Chinese.)
But nobody in the west is pushing for or defending the mass colonization of anyone else, or claiming that any other countries need to be diversified (although we're starting to see the left rumble about Japan, as it's a prime example of a beautiful homogeneous society with almost zero crime as a result of their homogeneity and culture. And since ethnonationalists point to Japan as an example of why it's a good thing, the left is starting to want to destroy Japan with multiculturalism now...)
But generally speaking, only whites are held up as an example of a people who owe it to the rest of the world to allow themselves to be invaded and outbred, wiped from history. Nobody else faces remotely the level of pressure to not only allow it, but to help facilitate it, pay for it, welcome it, etc. To put our heads on the chopping block and beg for the axe to drop to pay for some ancestral sin.