Hey, Racist.

Ha. The problem with a free country as opposed to a dictatorship is that in a free country the bullshit changes its face on a regular basis, and that leaves some people confused about the essential bullshitness of it. In a dictatorship, the bullshit is always the same, and once people catch on to it after the first round the rest is just more of the same, which no one buys but genuine mental cases. But most of us in free countries don't really get the fundamentals of this or anything else cause we're-- RACISTS.

This is the free West, and when "racist" is so worn out as to be laughable, then we'll see the geniuses turn to some other bullshit, like, for example, "Tea Party."

Yalla, racists.

Obama gods and Palin monsters

"O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh."
Matthew 12: 34, King James Bible

The laudatory bullshit one reads regarding Obama is enough to make a sensible man sick. Take, for example, Newsweek editor Evan Thomas, who claimed that Obama is a sort of god. Thomas, grandson of six-time Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas, said on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

"I mean in a way Obama’s standing above the country, above – above the world, he’s sort of God."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/kyle-drennen/2009/06/05/newsweek-s-evan-thomas-obama-sort-god#ixzz0joNXVNBy

Let's look for a moment at something Thomas seems not to understand:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...."

Evan Thomas seems to miss the point of our nation: that all men are born as equal in their rights. It means that no man, just because he was born to a title, is more equal than a man who is not born to a title. Even if a man is born as "King" he is the equal of any man not so born. And in our nation, no man is "entitled" by birth of himself. One might be born with a title, but then it's all up to the baby to grow up to do as he can. Titles don't entitle a man. Ours is a free country because no one is bound by his birth to be other than what he is by nature. Too many Americans just don't get it: We are free people because we are free to be ourselves. No man is a sort of god. Every man is just man. Every man is as naturally equal as any other, no god bullshit about it. We all have the same natural rights, no divine right of kings, no gods involved.

Thomas probably doesn't mean Obama is a spiritual god, but a temporal "heroic" man, a super man, ubermensch, as it were. Obama is (superlative.)

There are those who look on the world comprising Gods and Monsters. To some, some men are not born equal in natural rights as men; some men are gods and some are monsters. There is Obama. There is Sarah Palin.

I could puke when I read how smart is Obama and those who laud him. Those are the same who claim that those not Obama fans are mentally feeble in various ways. Those who laud Obama consider themselves "smart." Those who laud Obama consider those who do not laud him to be evil and stupid. Smart people. Let's look at one:

The quotation below comes from a newspaper report on an accident involving a car driver and pedestrians.

"She's always preaching to me, 'Mom, do this,'" Wain said of her daughter, who she said suffers from bipolar disorder. "She's always helping people. She's always telling people what to do. She's intelligent."

Tamara Cherry, "Two pedestrians struck in midtown Toronto," Toronto Sun. 17 Feb. 2010

A bipolar women bullying her idiot mother. Daughter is considered "smart" because she "preaches" and "helps people," tells them what to do: is "intelligent." That seems to be what the communalist deems "smart" to be. Obama, a sort of god who bullies the nation, is "smart." Those who don't like such things: "feeble-minded," or the modern equivalent.

There is an interesting chapter in American history, in English history to a lesser extent, and in German history to an overwhelming extent, concerning "feeble-minded" people. That chapter, the Englishman Francis Galton's concoction of the pseudo-science we know of as Eugneics, the ridding of the world of the feeble-minded. Eugenics was taken up by American pseudo-scientists in a large way in the early part of the 20th century, and it was imported and adapted further by Germans, especially in the 1930s and 40s. The world, then, was made of Gods and Monsters.

Today, when the likes of Sarah Palin are "fascists"?

This is what a young person writes today:

"I just realised that at the time, Marie Antoinette's actions lead to her own execution. If we treated political figures the same way as French did then, Sarah Palin would have been killed by now. Oh, those were the days."

It takes an extraordinary hubris to write such a line. One must be a god to do so. Only he who knows all of the universe and life itself can find it in his own mind to pass judgement on people who are "lesser" to the point of condemning them to death. It's a Eugenic project, this condemnation unto death of the "stupid." Only a god would so presume.

Thomas F. Bertonneau, "Smearing the Sweden Democrats," Brussels Journal. 22 Feb. 2010.

Among the symptoms of Gnostic dementia, Voegelin remarked pathological alienation from the world, as it is given to us; he also remarked that this alienation easily tips over into outright destructive hatred. The Gnostic sees reality as tyrannical and intolerable because God or some power has brought reality about, endowing it with the character that it possesses, without consulting the Gnostic. The Gnostic is someone – he might even be atheist, as most self-identifying modern people and most Left-liberals are – who in effect resents the fact that he is not God and who wishes to become or to replace God, or whatever the power is that has led to the present constitution of reality. In nominating himself as the replacement-deity, the Gnostic strives to demonstrate his god-equivalence by remaking or transforming existence. He wishes to be absolutely sovereign and will tolerate no competitor or rival. Destroying longstanding traditions and replacing them by synthetic abstractions belong to this project, as the histories of the ideological dictatorships will reveal.

If you've ever asked yourself how Germans could have become the most evil people in history, i.e. that they embraced Nazi-ism, you have probably concluded, as I do, that Germans never for a moment considered themselves or their programme to be anything other than perfectly good. They must have seen themselves as so good as to be nearly perfect, and their leader as a sort of god. Yes, the German people saw themselves as the master race, the smart people, the elite, the best of the best. And then? Well, then they decided to improve upon the works of god and nature by selecting for good breeding the smart rather than the stupid, helping nature by ridding it of nature's mistakes. How could making the human world better be wrong? How could ridding the world of stupid people be anything but a benefit to humanity? Eugenic. The good and the living. Let the good live so they can triumph, while ridding the world of weeds, of those not fit for life.

Who decides? He who must be some sort of god, his law-givers a generation of vipers.

Racism: A Sorites Paradox

A Sorites Paradox. Race is a Sorites Paradox. Everyone knows what race is. We know that Laplanders are ... well, bad example. We all know that Armenians are Asians. No. OK, we all know Basques are Europeans. Uh, we know that Mexicans are Mongolians. We know that my folks from the north of Scotland are displaced Highlanders mixed with Danes, Swedes and Norwegians and Dutch, Flemish and French and my odd man out grandfather who was English; that my red-blond, blue-grey eyed, tall family, and then me looking like the milkman, are all Scottish, "cleared" from the Highlands to make room for sheep, exiled from Iceland and the Faroes and the Shetlands and the Orkneys to the eastern cities before fleeing to America where family members changed their names more often that they changed their socks, I'm Scottish. Clear? It is to me: I see my relatives in nearly every person I see in the north, mom here, dad there, uncle around the corner, gramma in the shop, aunt on the bus, and there staring me in the face is me, my own self looking right past me at others who look like me to the nose and brows. Race? Well, I know only what I'm not. Sort of. (There've been whispers and sometimes loud accusations of my great-grandmother being -- don't say this aloud, [German]). I don't have a UK passport, so I don't know how to make a good legal case for being Scottish, and I really haven't pursued it to make it legal because I really don't care. To me it ain't meaningful outside my own self. It's not an interesting way for me to divide up my reality in ways I can deal with. Protestant? Well, no, thought the family are, sort of but not really. Middle class? Well, yeah, within reason, if one splits my vagabondage and the high success of others with their bourgeois tendencies and economic class standing. So, in fact, it's all kind of very much unclear who I am and what anyone is if I look closely enough to see any of the details. One I do that I find myself looking at everyman as a Hooded Man. All I see is a Sorites paradox, reality dissolving into something I thought I understood but now certainly do not. No, I'm not African, I suspect. And I doubt I'm Asian, probably. It's a matter of a Sorites Paradox: to say that a man is bald because he has so little hair, but we don't know just which lost hair it is that makes him bald and which one we could replace to make him not bald; which grain of sand makes it a heap and which grain lost makes it not a heap. In fact, when I look at race,I am stumped and just don't know a thing anymore about it. I know what I'm not, and I suspect that's all most people can lay claim to. Thousands of years of Northerners? Yeah, that's about it. I'm not a southerner.

The far north of Scotland has claim to the barren wasteland of Sutherland. That's the Viking sense of humor at work. Norwegians? They're easterners. For me as a boy, North Dakota was as far east as I imagined anyone could ever go without falling off the Earth into the spoiled land of New York, somewhere adjacent to Hell. It's all a Sorites Paradox. To the average man none of the discussion of race makes any real sense once one looks at it. It all falls apart, built on nothing at all. But it is real in that one is not something else. One makes a choice, deciding that one is of ones own, and the collective definition counts, even if it's ephemeral. Language, location, ethnicity, religion. That makes me Scottish. Sort of.

So, being originally from the far North, I look at Milton worrying himself sick over his fear that the English in London, being so far north of Italy, were subject to stupidity because, as the Italians let everyone know, the climate and conditions of the north make people there stupid; and Milton suffered. To him and to many others, it was obvious that Italians were the most enlightened and brilliant people on Earth, those to the North degenerate and incapable of much, certainly not of greatness themselves. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton himself-- all stupid because they came from England. Obvious, and Milton believed it and suffered from it. That makes me particularly stupid, and Beowulf moreso.

Race? Yes. Ethnicity? Yes. Meaningful? Sort of. My Polish Jewish girlfriend from Texas? Uh, let me get back to you on that one.

We can see America as a racist empire if we choose to. We can see the extermination of Indians and the slavery of Africans as the greatest crimes in Human history if we choose to. We can see America as a racist nation, built on racism, imbued with racism, nothing but a racist entity from beginning to end. We can look at taking space from Indians and enslaving Negroes as racism. We can say Indians and we can say Negroes so long as they are not us, so long as we can say we are not those though we can't say exactly what we are. And we can call this racism, if we choose to. Is it? Obviously, Negroes and Indians are not Europeans. Sort of. Let's pass over the occasional Greenlander who was caught up in a current in his kayak who then drifted to the north Islands of Scotland, and let's forget those who came with Columbus and others as curiosities from the Caribbean. Let's not speak then of Moors like Othello. Let's forget Napoleon's wife, let's forget de Gobineau's mother. Let's not talk ever of Dumas and so many others. Because if we do, then our idea of who we are not is so ephemeral that we are really left with not much. We won't be able to talk of race. Let's not talk about America at all because we would have to talk then about New Orleans' population of people who we can't say anything racially and ethnically sensible. New York City? This is impossible. And Israel? Falashas? Ashkenazim? Arabs? Suddenly, when we try to discuss ethnicity we find there is nothing to discuss in real terms, only there is remaining the idea of "Well, not this, not that, maybe." It's a Sorites Paradox.

There is something obvious about race and ethnicity, but to claim we can define it easily by looking at someone,by pointing in the dark, by guessing, by wishing, by being happy or angry, that is to give in to stupidity, to bigotry, to worthless discrimination for no purpose other than to satisfy some lack in ourselves that has nothing to do with others. To look for, as Truepeers writes, for the one final scapegoat who will free us of our resentments and usher in utopia, that is the failure of the person. It says nothing about race or ethnicity. It speaks only of a deluded epistemology and a small personality. But there is something to speak of, if only we can get it right.

If we can begin to clear up this Sorites Paradox of race we might begin to address the issue of Nativism in Europe. That's our problem of the time.

Muslims in the West are making themselves so deeply hated by the majority of people, non-Muslims of all sorts, that only the most hate-filled Leftists and most hate-filled Rightists can stomach them. Most Westerners don't hate anyone they don't actually know, restricting their hatreds to husbands, wives, children, neighbors, bosses, co-workers,and so on. Most Westerners have other things on their minds that abstract hates of people from other racial or ethnic groups. We live mostly in cities where our privacy is our own and our publicities are shared by millions of anonymous strangers we don't even look at if we see them. Race and religion mean mostly nothing to most of us. But Islam, but Muslims generally, they make themselves an issue of concern to the majority, and we are beginning to openly hate them, more and more private people who have no concern or regard for those outside their small circles of acquaintances, they begin to hate Muslims.

Why do the majority populations of the West hate Muslims? I can't count so high as that. The reasons are daily expanded and compounded. Muslims seem to have a suicidal urge they can't fulfill without the West acting for them by exterminating them. And our hatred? Is it "racist." Not hardly. It's common sense and common Humanness to get fed up with bullshit, to lash out at hostility, and to kill the outrageously dangerous. 'Hello Muslims.' Yes, 'Hello Left dhimmi fascists and Right wing racists/anti-Semites.' Provocation? You bet. So, what do we do with the accusation of "racism?"

It's disingenuous to claim that Islam is not a race. No, Islam is not a race, it's a poligion. But to claim it's not a race is to claim it's not racial. Obviously most Muslims are not European ethnically. It matters. It matters when Muslims provoke a hatred of themselves in the West if not everywhere on Earth, which they do. In Europe we see Muslims enraging the locals more and more daily,and the Muslims are not European ethnically, ethnically even though all we might be able to say of that is that we don't know exactly what we mean but we know we mean not them. No, theoretically,Islam is not ethnic. In practice, very much so and obviously so. Most Arabs are Muslims, and few Swedes so far are Muslim. But many blond Albanians are living in Sweden, and one might find it difficult to tell them apart from any short distance. It's not obvious and it's not simple. Often we know that a Muslim is likely to be an ethnic type not like us if we are European and not something else. But who can tell a Sikh from a Muslim in a dark tunnel? Or a Swede? We go with what we see, and the Sorites Paradox tells us we don't know what we see. We might well be homicidally enraged by Muslims, and we might not know who they are and we might not see who we see. Seeing race and ethnicity isn't going to help us much in determining who is who and who we are pissed off at. When it comes to telling whose bald and who isn't where do we draw the line? We don't have a clue. There is no answer unless there in an answer, and then we still won't know if it's real or imagined. What if a bald man wears a wig? What if a hirsute man shaves his head? What is a Muslim is a woman bound? A boy? A slave? Mentally incompetent. A convert? A liar?

Let me admit that I see that Northern Europeans are not the same as Arabs, though i might be hard-pressed at times to say why they are different, and sometimes I might mistake them for the other. I might assume a Swede is a northern Protestant and an Arab is a Muslim, and I might well be totally wring, finding out later that the Swede is a Muslim convert and the Arab is a Chaldean. How would I know just by looking? I wouldn't. And I might be fouled up by assuming that a Swede is a European and an Arab is a primitive only to find the Swede is a Communist and the Arab is an American Republican exchange student. Again and again, we face a Sorties Paradox. Any time we assume we know we will very likely find out we don't in fact know a damned thing about what we're on about. And so it is with "racism."

Let's look for now at "nativism." Let's unravel a bit of the idea of racism as it's directed at those of us who wish for and work for an Islam free Western world, if not for a world free of Islam. Is a "Nativist" a "racist"?

The following excerpt from No Dhimmitude is on Nativism, "Nativism and Power,is an essential point of our discussion here.

In politics "nativist" refers to the socio-political positions taken up by those who identify themselves as "native-born".

Nativism is a hostile and defensive reaction to the flux of immigration. Though it surfaced first, gained a name and affected politics in mid-19th century United States, recognizably nativist movements have since arisen among the Boers of South Africa, and in the 20th century in Australia and Britain. In American history, nativism was always associated with fears that certain new immigrants might inject political and cultural values at odds with the American way of life.

The term "nativism" is normally applied only to nativists of European stock, and accused by some of being a nationalist element of racism. Similar ideologies espoused by non-Europeans are given other labels and are rarely connected to nativism in public discourse. For instance, while Mexican President Vicente Fox faults the US for not opening its borders, Mexico simultaneously cracks down harshly on "undocumented migrants" who breach her southern borders from other Central American countries. Yet no public discussion accuses Mexico of being nativist in immigration policies. Modern contention over ancient ethnic occupation of areas in Eastern Europe, the Balkans and the Caucasus, sometimes based on tenuous linguistic and place-name hints, is given added urgency by assumptions that an urrecht of the earliest local population can justify nativist stances towards more recent arrivals. These issues are rarely assessed in terms of "nativism".

One such example that has succeeded in asserting their nativist rights, is Zionism. They have based their claim on the territory of Palestine on the Bible and created the state of Israel.

U.S. nativism appeared in the late 1790s in reaction to the political refugees from France and Ireland. After passage of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 it receded. Nativist outbursts occurred in the Northeast from the 1830s to the 1850s, primarily in response to a surge of Irish Catholic immigration. In 1836, Samuel F. B. Morse ran unsuccessfully for Mayor of New York on a Nativist ticket, receiving 1,496 votes. In New York City, an Order of United Americans (OUA) was founded as a nativist fraternity, following the Philadelphia Nativist Riots of the preceding spring and summer, in December, 1844.

In 1849–50 Charles B. Allen founded a secret nativist society called the Order of the Star Spangled Banner in New York as a result of the fear of immigrants. In order to join the Order a man had to be twenty-one, a Protestant, a believer in God, and willing to obey without question the dictates of the order. Members of the Order became known as the Know-Nothings (a label applied to them by newspaper editor Horace Greeley, because no one would admit to knowing anything about the secret society). The Nativists went public in 1854 when they formed the 'American Party', which was anti-Irish Catholic and campaigned for laws to require longer wait time between immigration and naturalization. It is at this time that the term "nativist" first appears, opponents of Americanists denounced them as "biggoted nativists." Former President Millard Fillmore would run on the American Party ticket for the Presidency in 1856. The American Party included many ex-Whigs who rejected nativism, and included (in the South) some Catholics. Conversely, much of the opposition to Catholic and Chinese immigrants came from other immigrants, who can hardly be called "nativists."

This form of nationalism often identified with xenophobia, anti-Catholic sentiment (anti-papism). In the 1840s, small scale riots between Catholics and nativists took place in several American cities. In California, Irish immigrants vented their resentment against the Chinese. Nativist sentiment experienced a revival in the 1880s, led by Protestant Irish immigrants hostile to Catholic immigration. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was the first of many nativist acts of congress to limit the flow of immigrants into the U.S. The Orange Order was the center of nativism in Canada from the 1860s to 1950s. The second Ku Klux Klan, which flourished in the U.S. and Canada in the 1920s, used strong nativist rhetoric. In 1928, nativist bias was an important feature of the defeat of Presidential candidate, Alfred E. Smith, a Catholic. During World War II, 'nativist' undercurrents fueled the Japanese American Internment.

American nativist sentiment experienced a resurgence in the late 20th century, this time directed at 'illegal aliens,' largely Mexican resulting in the passage of new penalties against illegal immigration in 1996. After terrorist attacks in New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001, nativist feeling and islamophobia were amplified and directed increasingly toward individuals perceived to be either Arab and/or Muslim; these found themselves the target of rhetoric and a request by nativists to tighten border controls. The early 21st-century American movement that is self-characterized as "Immigration reduction" attempts to distance itself from any suggestion of Nativist motivations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nativism/
****
It likely strikes many as obvious that there is a conflation of nativism and racism. I beg to spit on such a thought. Such reductionism is typical of the stupidity of many on our so-called intellectuals. The KKK is not America; the BNP is not Britain; the FN is not France. The IRA is not Muslim. Should the Irish, as one example, make concessions to Muslims in Ireland by way of sharia in Ireland? Are the Irish, if they do not concede sharia privilege to the Muslim community in Ireland, nativist and racist? And if one argues such, does it really make any difference?

The only argument for or against sharia privilege in Ireland is who has power. Any other argument is naive and sentimental. There is one rule: "All political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

The Islamic umma is at war against the world at large. It is between the natives and the Muslims. No, Islam is not monolithic, and no, not every Muslim is violent; but yes, it only takes a small number of dedicated people to rule. We are for ourselves in opposition to Islam or we are on our way to Islam and dhimmitude. It's not fair. We should all just get along and live in peace and harmony. In the real world there are real people who are our enemies. They might win. It is a matter of power.
****

The above excerpt is from a long piece on practical power and nativist privilege. The short version is that those who came first and made things as they are have a great say in how things should be therefore, those new-comers not liking it having the option of leaving. It's perhaps bigoted but not "racist" to fight for ones privileged state in the order of things. In the final analysis, guns rule the day. So it will always be. Our question is who will have the guns and who will they aim them at and why. Is it a question of "racism"? Is it a question of natural right? What can we support? We won't likely support "racism" which isn't a real thing in the minds of many if even few. It does have to do with "race." But mostly it has to do with "what is to be done?" in a practical sense of not knowing exactly what we face and how we live within our moral means. We can't rightly over-spend our alloted fund of morality. We have to be careful about what we do and why. If we accept nativism to an extent,and if we don't accept "racism" because we just don't know what the Hell we're discussing if we discuss it, then where do we go? Can we even accept Nativism? If not, then how much cultural relativism and multiculturalism will we put up with in the face of Islamic jihad and demographic catastrophe? Should we even care in a world of such impersonal cites and alienation so long as we can live our lives in some quiet for the course of our own lives and to Hell with the future?

But even after all this length we still haven't gotten to "racism." It ain't what you might think it is. It's a paradox of a whole nother kind. It's important that we understand things as they are so we can think them through and deal with our problem effectively and sanely if it comes to hard bargaining with "others."

Racism? If we don't kow what we mean by it, let's not say we do just yet.

Neo-Nazi Racist Phantasma

No man is an island entire of itself; every man is a part of the continent." There are no autarkies, not even the Communist nightmare idiocy of North Korea. Nothing is alone anymore and without influence and without connection to other X. There is no racial purity, no such possibility, and no sane person thinks there should be. To think otherwise is by definition insane. To think we can "purify" nations of ethnic outsiders is silly and pointless to discuss. Those who take racialist conspiracy theorizing seriously are not our friends and not worth complaining about any more than would be the shouting, filthy guy on the street corner. But it does come up.

There is a concern regarding the native European anti-jihadist movement. Is it composed of neo-Nazis? Is it filled chock-a-block with racists? I find this discussion to be bizarre. Neo-Nazis? That's so far removed from normal living that only the most uninformed or deluded could consider it. But "racists"? Ah, that we can go on about at some length.

":Racism." Boaz, Benedict, Mead, et al have made our conversation nearly taboo. Why, and who really knows these people in the first place? Why bring up names like that? Because without knowing them, who they were, what they thought and wrote, how they came up with our modern understanding of racism and cultural relativism we will forever find ourselves speaking without knowing, taking without understanding. White Guilt didn't begin with the aftermath of the Nazis. It began with the anthropologists of the post war era, post 1918. It began among a small and dedicated group of intellectuals who decided to correct the wrongs of colonialism and social Darwinism by promoting philobarbarism and cultural relativism. "Racism" as we know it, didn't begin with de Gobineau, as it should have; it began with the anthropologists who came out of the anti-slavery movement, women who worked with religious reformers to ensure an end of slavery in America. It came from those same women finding that after the end of slavery, women had fewer rights than Negroes. It came from intelligent, educated, and organized women barred from the traditional professions who found themselves in positions of authority and influence only in the field of baby-sitting on a grand scale, i.e. as social workers. Benedict and Mead were such women, from such milieu. "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has," as Margaret Mead wrote. It is sinister, it is in that sense "left." This small gang of Gnostic minders changed the course of our intellectual history far more radically than did the architects of the Holocaust. They are the ones who hijacked the idea of "racism" and turned it into what is used today as a catch-all pejorative to quell dissent, to deny freedom to the masses, to entrench themselves ever further in the ground of povertarianism. There is no "racism" in the sense our screaming Left uses the term. "Ethnic cleansing" so-called in Jugoslavia was no such thing. There are no ethnic "Bosnians." There are no specific Serbs different from Croats. Rubbish. There is no racism involved. No ethnic profiling. Rubbish! Rubbish! They are only different in religions and sects therein. It's the anthropologist echo we find claiming "racism." This canard of racism doesn't fly. It's a manufactured tool of social engineering created by a small group of intellectuals in the 1920s. Racism? This is not de Gobineau. This is aggressive American Gnostic sentimentality browbeating the working class for quiescence and the financial elite for money. When we speak today of "racism" we do not speak of the same thing as the anti-Semitism of the Germans and Europeans generally. "Racism" in the West is meant as anthropology and philobarbarism. The crazies don't think of anti-Semitism as racism because it isn't: it's anti-Semitism. Racism? That's a different story altogether.

Slavery predates Social Darwinism by the entire length of Human history. But when we talk about "racism" today we mean, whether we understand it or not, the theories of the social Darwinists. Ganging up on and enslaving others who are weaker is no news anywhere. The idea that it is OK and right to do so due to "the survival of the fittest" is what we react to today and call racism. That ship hit the sand long ago. It no longer floats. Pretending that anti-Semitism and the "racism" of social Darwinism is the same thing the anthropologist reacted to is to conflate the obviously different for no legitimate reason. Viciousness is ordinary. The only remarkable thing about the Nazis was the efficiency of their genocidal acts. The so-called racism of the colonialist Europeans is not of scale or kind the same. The casual contempt one finds in colonialist memoirs is a natural xenophobia of any sane person who wishes to survive. Anyone who wasn't xenophobic until one hundred years ago in major cities in western Europe must have been insane. Outsiders meant threat, disease, murder, invasion, or the tax-collector. Xenophobia, even today, is smart. So is our moderation in our Modernity, our blessing that we do not have to run to and kill a stranger on sight before he comes to do us harm. But xenophobia is still an integral part of the Human experience, even for those who spend their lives traveling the world solo. One must depend on ones own-- even in the Modern cosmopolitan megalopolis. Even in a hotel in Africa. Even in a parking lot at the supermarket in Kansas. To sentimentalize the "Other" is nothing more than a meal ticket, or more accurately, a meal thesis. Confusing what is natural and right in Human behavior, xenophobia, with the maniac genocide of the Germans against the Jews is not convincing. The Nazis didn't act from xenophobia, nor did they act from a feeling of missionary Modernist evangelism. Boaz and Mead, et al, reacted to the latter, not to the former, when they began their campaigns against "racism." Bringing the light of Modernity to the ignorant masses is not the same as exterminating everyone. It ain't the same. Contempt for other cultures and the people of those cultures is not Nazi-ism. Only an idiot would think so, and only a foolish idiot would say so. Slavery is normal; extermination of ones enemies is normal; fearing those whom one does not know is normal; but in our blessed Modernity those things, those acts, those attitudes are not normal, not permissible, are outright bad. But they are not the same as being a Nazi. Being a xenophobic Swede or Swiss or Dane or Darfuran is not the same as being a neo-Nazi. Slavery of the weak and primitive is the nature of things in a primitive and more visceral world than ours today. Doing good for the benefit of those less fortunate than ourselves, those who are primitive and uncivilized, that's the mind of the Gnostic Left at work, the mind of the Gnostic Right at work, the mind of the minder at work. Those things, if unlikable to us in our Modern time, are still understandable and within the scope of our experience. These are things we can control as mature and civilized affluent beings in a state of economic and social benefit. We can afford to be generous with others, and if we aren't, so much the worse for us. If we don't "do enough" to satisfy the missionaries among us, that is not racism, not evil, not worth discussing. That doesn't make us Nazis. Rampaging across the world murdering Jews is not the nature of things, it is a madness of primitives gone amok. A medical definition of the term might clarify: Amok: A syndrome first reported in the Malay people, usually male, consisting of a period of brooding followed by a sudden outburst of indiscriminate murderous frenzy, sometimes provoked by an insult, jealousy or sense of desperation. The person who runs amok may also die in a form of murder-suicide. Confusing or conflating Nazi genocidal madness with ordinary Human behavior, however repugnant to our Modern sensitivities, is not productive. Bashing others for assumed or supposed "racism" without defining or understanding the term is a failure on our part.

Most groups are uniform, and there's no good point in denying such an obvious reality. Skateboard kids do not hang out with investment bankers. Muslims do not hang out with Baptists. Koreans do not hang out with Japanese. Why? Because they are not the same kind of people. And if millions of skateboard kids invaded our city... wait a minute. If millions of Muslims invaded a small and mono-ethnic nation of centuries of in-breeding, what would be the mistake in thinking the natives won't like it if the invaders are ill behaved? Invaders? Yes, of course. To go into in a harmful and intrusive way. Mom in your bedroom is an intruder. She has invaded your space. Go figure.

To sentimentalize is always dishonest. To force ourselves to pretend we are enthused about strangers is a hopeless exercise in deception. Unless one hopes to have sex with a stranger that stranger is a threat until proven otherwise. And even with the promise of sex it's not always a good hope that two strangers will get along for more than a day. To change quickly and fundamentally is harmful and suspect. To allow millions of strangers into ones homeland is outrageous. To o pretend we like it when strangers some to our places and do odd things is to lie to ourselves and to offend the decency of others who do not so lie. To adulate is to cultivate contempt for oneself in place of the feeling of self-righteousness one expects. To fawn over strangers is to make them hate you. The phoniness is degrading and despicable. If the stranger is not acculturated to city living amongst a variety of strangers as we in our Modernity are, he is likely to want to cut the throats of such pointlessly groveling sycophants. To pretend to like "multi-culturalism" is to lie in the face of others and to oneself. To dislike the different is normal. To wish to improve those one finds less than oneself is normal. To dissociate oneself from strangers who don't get ones jokes is normal. It's not "racism." It's not Nazi-ism. To kill people over inconsequential differences of origins is to be mad. Those who don't get my jokes? Don't get me started.

European "racists"? Who can blame them? And who among us really doesn't get the 'Palestinians' and the rest who hate the Jews in the Middle East? Yes, the Israelis are unobtrusive and confined to an ever shrinking area. Yes, one might understand a few years of antagonism as one group moves in and rubs against the older. Italians and Irish faced it in Manhattan, and they eventually became Americans like any other Americans. But it's only New World nations that can have such multi-ethnic groups becoming one. Jews will never become Arabs, and no one should expect it to be so. Nor should one expect Arabs to obsess for generations like rabid dogs over a group of outsiders living in Jerusalem. No one should expect 300 million Arabs to go berserk over a few Jews, insane to the point of killing their own children over self-created Nazi-esque disproportion. Would a group of investment bankers be expected to murder a skateboard kid in a meeting on the street in a suburb? Even if the damn kid lived there it's not likely. But why should they like him? If the suburb is overrun, then one group must prevail and set its perimeter and defend it against intrusion. That's living la vida loca, folks, and it's real in spite of the sentimental trash one is expected to parrot in pubic, smiling as one does so.

We can't escape strangers in our world. We have to accommodate them. They too have to accommodate us. We don't have to like every one. We do have to get along. And when we can't we have to separate civilly. How do we decide who to separate and who from? What criterion is decisive? "Race"? Language? In-house customs? Religion? "I was here first"?

This particular sentimental episode in history is over. People won't continue buying it. The rule of society by nineteenth century spinster nannies is just about over. Hurling epithets like "racist" is going to earn one a sharp sharp slap. Racist? Get over it. Nazi? That's from outer space. However, reason and sense might not prevail after all. There might be a surge of Reaction among delusional Leftists that could rival the French aristocrats of the Napoleonic era and beyond. In fact, those are the very enemies we've always faced, though they don't recognize themselves as such. The question is "What is to be done?" Are we going to kill a whole lot of people like the Jugoslavs did? If we do we won't find ourselves at rest in our own homelands; we'll find ourselves at war with the primitives of the world, a bifurcated world of those who are Modern and those who are primitive. And that is insoluble. It's not about race. It's about how do we survive our differences without killing the other side in toto. What is to be done?