Will segregation be retroactively justified?

Properly speaking, no, the moral status of racial segregation in the past is not affected by unknown future events.  In the minds of our descendants, though, things might be different.  The civil rights narrative we learned in school is that blacks wanted to be equal, to blend in as indistinguishable pieces of a post-racial society, and there were so few of them that it would have cost whites very little to integrate them, but out of perverse hatred we refused to do it.  Today, whites are legally disfavored, we are disproportionately the victims of interracial violence, and our history and culture are demonized by the media and schools.  Still, none of this affects the average white very much, because we’re still a majority.  Soon, though, we’ll be a minority, a legally disfavored, widely despised and scapegoated minority, and that will be much worse than the current minor inconveniences of affirmative action and antiracist status-signaling.  The narrative of American racial relations will surely be different then, once it is clear that equality was just a brief transition period between white supremacy and colored supremacy.  Equality is unstable.  One naturally settles to a state where one race has higher status than another.  In such a zero-sum game, it is more understandable that whites once used the law to keep themselves in the top spot.  One needn’t suppose that they were driven by some inexplicable form of hatred.  This is, at least, how it will appear, even if equality was once an achievable thing and segregation really was driven by anti-black animus.

It may be realized in the future that whites resorted to law because of the weakness of our race, because we knew that in a level social playing field with blacks, we would lose.  Certainly whiteness is genetically weak:  the child of a white and a black is black, by general acknowledgment both when being white was high status and now that being black is high status.  Whites may well be socially inferior too; I remember reading somewhere that black high school students are more popular than white high school students.  Most importantly, we whites know ourselves to be inferior to the blacks and the Jews in morale.  (I haven’t been talking about Jews up till now, but they really fit in on this point.)  The really frightening thing about our racial competitors is their absolute certainty in their superior righteousness.  The blacks and the Jews, it would seem, never experience the doubt that plagues whites, much less our sense of moral inferiority before the Other.  They are certain that our identity is based on hatred; we deny it, but we understand their point and worry they might be right.  They never worry that maybe we’ve got a point.  In a contest between certainty and doubt, their certainty will always win.

Why do they have the stronger faith?  Maybe it’s innate; whites just aren’t as good at group loyalty.  Maybe we really are morally inferior and know it; having admitted that slavery was wrong, we can’t feel ever again like we have any moral legitimacy in the face of blacks.  That would be ironic.  It would mean we were compelled to keep being unjust to them just because we had already been unjust to them so long that an acknowledgement of their equality would immediately be an acknowledgement of their superiority.  Even though one might then say that the whole thing is ultimately whites’ fault (although remember that European countries that never practiced slavery or colonialism also get demands that they become “multicultural”, i.e. accept colored supremacy), one can appreciate that the whites born later inherited quite a predicament.  Does it ever end?  Are whites going to have to ask blacks to enslave us before we can again be a race like any other?

35 Responses

  1. I ask again, when does the shooting start?

  2. […] Source: Will segregation be retroactively justified? […]

  3. If Whites disappear, which is not impossible, historians in the far distant future may ask, not why there was racial segregation, but why racial segregation was abandoned. After all, segregation is a normal part of social life and the horror over racial segregation is a function of today’s racial politics. Once Whites are gone, the racial politics of our age will loose its potency and people will no longer view our situation in terms of good guys and bad guys, just winners and losers. If it appears to them that the losers threw open the gate, that is what will require explanation, not why there was a gate in the first place.

    Segregation in the old South served partly to express the superior social status of Whites, but it was mainly a practical matter. If you read defenses of Jim Crow laws, three things stand out. First, segregation was used as a means to accommodate different behavioral norms. For instance, segregated railroad carriages were justified by the fact that traveling Blacks made more noise than traveling whites. No doubt this was lousy for studious Blacks and boisterous Whites, but it is not evil in itself. And I don’t think anyone believes the difference was imaginary. Second, it was a means to protect White women from Black men who would otherwise hit on them. Modern writers like to snort at this, but they should speak to young White women today, who live in predominantly Black areas. Related to this was a general desire to reduce conflict by reducing contact. The third reason, relevant to segregated neighborhoods, was that this made it easier to spot people who were roaming around where they had no legitimate business being.

  4. I believe Whites will be kept around, like the hamster on the wheel, to generate coveted shekels and gibsmedats.

  5. I think you profoundly underestimate how bad this is likely to get once whites become a market dominant minority. Market dominant minorities are apt to be exterminated. Combine equalist ideology with natural hostility to market dominant minorites, and the shit really hits the fan.

    Let us look at the Tutsi and the Hutu. Before the colonialists arrived, the Tutsi owned the Hutus and farmed them like cattle. White interevention to institute equality became progressively more extreme, most recently the procedure of vaginally impaling Tutsi women with objects larger than themselves in order to lower Tutsi self esteem, on the theory that the reason that Tutsi keep on being superior no matter how harshly the state persecutes them is because they have this horrible racist idea that they are superior, which idea needs to be corrected by measures that become ever more drastic.

    Equalist ideology says that white superiority is unfair and needs to be fixed, yet whites, no matter how severely persecuted, will remain superior, which will require, as with the Tutsi, ever escalating persecution.

  6. Recap: Once you declare “all men are created equal” then there is no natural limit at which whites stop being guilty, and non whites stop getting angry, because whites will remain superior no matter how extreme the punishment for their superiority. The more severe the punishment, the greater the white guilt, and the greater the nonwhite anger.

  7. This is certainly an interesting piece, but I do not really share the assessment. Things can be weighed as well as counted. Also, I suspect a race to the bottom gives no clear winner. It is hard to see how minority victors are going to wield the powers of a great modern, technocratic system over its creators and chief operatives. Not that I am arguing for technocracy. One cannot sustain a complex system on the bases of entertainment and professional sports. Since we are no longer doing an agricultural system, it is hard to see how anyone could enslave anyone on a systematic basis in the largely urban apocalyptic setting. A big mess seems more likely than anything.

  8. Johannes:

    One cannot sustain a complex system on the bases of entertainment and professional sports.

    That’s the monkey wrench in the thesis. It assumes that whatever is left over after white people have been exterminated by liberalism will be capable of sustaining any sort of civilization capable of having historians.

  9. The narrative you learned in school isn’t really reflective of the fact that there were competing civil rights ideologies for decades, including pro-segregation blacks and libertarian blacks with significant public pulpits. I live in whitopia and am not white myself, so I can’t really speak to your comments about life as a whitey-white in America today. I can say you’re not correct about mixed-race offspring. One drop is not alive nationally these days, though it is still present in many regions.

    One of the tragedies of the post-CRA era has been the memory holing of the complex and multifactored pre-CRA history for both blacks and whites. Whites have narratives like what you described, and blacks have their own inaccurate variation.

    At least I am able to purchase the relevant old books and have them and maybe reprint them in the future.

  10. > ” It is hard to see how minority victors are going to wield the powers of a great modern, technocratic system over its creators”

    The lights go out as in South Africa. Indeed it already happening. We can no longer build tall buildings, send men to the moon, etc. Look at our shopping malls. Once they looked like the future. Now they do not

    Compare “Freedom Tower”to the World Trade center. Our decline is obvious.

  11. I doubt whites will become a minority. What I think they’ll do is expand the term “white”. A century from now, Obama will be considered white, eventually it’ll become a one-drop rule. That way they can keep us as the oppressor class.

  12. @Bonald – You are talking as if Leftism (which drives these changes) is aiming at something particular, and find this something to be confused, self-contradictory… but, as you know, that is not how I see it.

    I see the essence of Leftism as oppositional, not principled – and its deep aim is destruction of Good, not an alternative vision of the Good. Being opposition, it continually mutates.

    The clearest example is native, male, white, working class (i.e manual worker) men – who used to be called ‘the Proletariat’, and were the ultimate good guys of Marxism – whereas now they are despised and loathed by Leftists – often by the very same Leftists who worshipped them in their youth.

    (Speaking as a cradle Leftist and an erstwhile member of the Left – the nature and goals of the modern Left would have been incomprehensible and horrible to the English Left of about a century ago – which was substantially based among respectable puritanical Nonconformists, with a leadership from the skilled working class – atheist Communism was a mere sideshow of the Aristocrats. This old Left was based on (a false) economic analysis and the (false) belief that poverty could be solved by state ownership of industry and re-distribution – its utopia did not work, and would in practice collapse into misery and horror – but the utopia itself was not actively evil in contrast with the way that the New Left utopia is evil – being based on permanent revolution and moral inversion.)

    No doubt, the last fifty years is partly explained by careerism and self-serving corruption among the Leftist elites – yet this does not explain the constancy of direction of Leftism – which looks exactly like a strategic and long-termist plan of destruction, covertly engineered by a small minority vanguard.

    In other words, no matter how many cynical, self-seeking careerists there are on the Left (as well as the naive dupes); there must be geniune, purposive evil behind it all: pushing constantly in a single direction, and adjusting ideology as is expedient for this ultimate goal.

    Because Leftism has now reached the point when it is clearly not even beneficial for the elites who are pushing it – since within a couple of decades, within their own expected lifespans (a couple of decades, or sooner in some places), they are likely to have created the kind of society which will make them personally very miserable indeed in their later careers or retirement. And with all escape destinations closed-off.

    Some of this self-destructiveness is probably based on deep self-loathing, and is willed and is probably a natural and almost inevitable consequence of trying to live without religion – which humans are not built to do – the first generation to be born into a secular society, secualr in the assumptions of the public sphere, seems likely also to be the last.

    But this willed incremental-suicide is itself part of the ‘plan’ of purposive evil.

    In other words, I think we must have an analysis which includes, as the *primary* driver, the work of purposive supernatural evil – with the minority of humans as wicked, selfish, hedonic – but stupid and doomed – puppets, and only a tiny (but powerful, influential, often famous) minority as more-or-less conscious servants of evil; and sees the unfolding post-60s tragedy as made possible only by the mass Christian apostasy into atheism and secular ideology of The West. This has not only led to the abandonment of The Good as the goal for life, but has also led to endemic and ineradicable demotivation and pruposeless.

    Nothing constructive can be done without FIRST addressing this primary problem of mass Apstasy – in other words we must have a religion, a great revival, and the only true choice is *which one*.

    If we don’t have a Christian revival, then there is no way out. Secularism from ‘the right’ (Ha!) will just reach the same destination of suicidal destruction by a slightly different route.

    The fact that a Christian revival seems extremely unlikely makes me a pessimist. That it is not impossible gives me hope.

  13. I thought the writings of “white supremacy” were verboten and then Dr. Charlton talks of a Christian revival THAT MUST BE amongst “whites” to have any relevance and it seems the true revival is a revival of true, genuine white Supremacy.

  14. Part of the answer to your question lies within the question itself. The Polish never lacked in morale to the extent that they were/are Polish and not white. Nobody is going to fight and die in order to be a white guy, but the ethnics held out against the worlds largest social engineering project long enough that people in the 70s were reading about the “Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics”. Ethnicity, not race, is the driving force of social cohesion. Black may be a race, but black Americans are almost all descended from a few tribes in a small part of western Africa. Jews likewise are extremely tribal.

    On some level, I instinctively want Muslims to stay out of *my* Europe, (which I have visited exactly three times for exactly three weeks), but I don’t feel the same anger when it comes to (Civilized, orthodox) Christian assylum seekers, and I do loath the idea of white Muslims taking over Europe.

  15. josh:
    I am starting to think that “white” is kind of like “conservative”. What it represents is a kind of “ethnicity lite”: it allows right liberals to try to sustain some of the goods of tribalism and ethnic identity without unequivocally repudiating liberalism. If that is correct than it is no accident that “whites” are ultimately suicidal about their own racial identity. Yesterday’s liberal is always today’s oppressor, because even liberals have to authoritatively discriminate in order to govern at all.

  16. Zippy & Josh,

    “White” is a social construct that has particular salience in modern America. Whites are the people who are stuck with ownership of Western civilization’s evil past and oppressive present, the people who don’t get to define themselves as oppressed. It may be ethnicity lite compared to some historical norm, but today “white” is a far weightier identity than “Irish”, “German”, or the like. Again, in the context of being a USA citizen.

  17. Practical Conservative,

    One place I’ll bet white narratives and (non-elite) black narratives differ is in how we identify Asians and Hispanics. For elites and most whites, all non-whites basically move into the “black” category (to the extent we think about them at all) as soon as they cross the border. Their own ethnic interest groups certainly encourage this, claiming for all non-whites victimhood of racism and demanding some share of recompense for America’s long history of slavery and segregation. I wonder what ordinary blacks (the ones who don’t get their brains washed in the university) think of this.

  18. One drop is not alive nationally these days, though it is still present in many regions.

    How many black mayors has Atlanta had? According to the people in whatever region it is where one drop is not alive.

  19. We use the word “white” in America because there is no word for what we are, for our ethnicity. White American is an ethnicity. It’s a new ethnicity, constructed over the last century by our evil overlords for their own purposes. But that changes little. Mothers are not relieved of their obligations to children conceived in rape. We are not relieved of our ethnicity because it is artificial, different from what we would like it to be, nameless, and despised.

  20. One place I’ll bet white narratives and (non-elite) black narratives differ is in how we identify Asians and Hispanics. For elites and most whites, all non-whites basically move into the “black” category

    Black, Chinese, and dot-Indian stereotypes carry the same taboo status among whites?

  21. What if the white race just is the actual physical melting pot of interbred liberals?

  22. I suppose one thing it might mean is that we have genetically selected for people who hate their own racial identity, if you believe in such things.

  23. Imagine a world where we recognized Chinese and Indians as people in power (“oppressors” if you like) in their own respective civilizations. That’s not at all what we do. They go into our category “minority”, whose content is fashioned entirely by our attitudes toward blacks.

  24. > White American is an ethnicity. It’s a new ethnicity, constructed over the last century by our evil overlords for their own purposes. But that changes little. We are not relieved of our ethnicity because it is artificial, different from what we would like it to be, nameless, and despised.

    That’s very well said.

  25. I am sometimes surprised by the abstractions here when God would be thought to come first.

    Firstly then, what Dr. Charlton wrote above.

    Second, in my reading my understanding is the Catholic church was the main creator of relatively low ethnocentricity by their breeding edicts for priests and the people through the centuries.

    Notably, as with many issues related to whites and race, much damage is self-inflicted.

    Third, more recently in the last couple hundred years the new Anglo countries repudiation of European-ness certainly creates a severe weakness, creating ahistorical nations founded on pride and separation instead of veneration of the work of one’s ancestors and culture. This last point obviously takes us back to the first.

  26. Indeed, Axismundi, St John Chrysostom has much to say about the “small minority vanguard” Charlton talks about.

  27. I don’t think white is our ethnicity. Ethnic requires a period of ethnicification and the whole point of modern society is to deny us this. White may have been and (may still be in some parts) a shorthand for a particular ethnic identity in the south. However, most of are not part of this ethnos.

    Also the church was anti tribal in its anti cousin marriage stance, but it was pro-rootedness (think of the rule of St. Benedict). There was period of ethnicification as the German barbarians followed the Benedictines model, stopped chasing pics through the forest, tilled the soil, labored and prayed. This is how Europe emassed a thousand flags. I think a lot of reactionaries are convinced that there is this choice between wide circles of social trust and in group loyalty that hinges on the degree of consanguinity. I don’t think this is right. Western civilization historically has both, and in think the key is the Church’s promotion of both outbreeding and rootedness.

  28. josh:
    Let me try to state it this way:

    The normal human condition is deep rootedness with some outbreeding, especially among the aristocracy. Liberalism tries to make everyone equally the aristocracy (superman), and destroys rootedness.

    What we ended up with – as actual liberals have bred for generations – is white people.

  29. White is not our ethnicity.

    Our overarching ethnicity is European. This connects us to biological reality and history and creates a solid foundation for unity.

    The subset ethnicity is wherever you and your ancestors are from in Europe.

    I’m perplexed by Zippy’s assertions.

    For Europeans the normal condition was deep rootedness with significant outbreeding.

    Less deep rootedness with *reduced* outbreeding was the way of the Aristocracy. They bred with people who had stunningly similar biological traits even when their mates were in different countries in Europe and Russia.

    The Aristocracy was IN-bred.

    Liberalism tries to make everyone (no, rather everyone who is European) rootless cosmopolitans who think they are aristocrats (Supermen).

    Regarding liberalism it’s worth keeping in mind that Ideologies are typically proxies.

  30. “White” meant “us” in a New World where everyone was European, West African Black or Injun. I’m ok with “European.” In fact, I think it’s better since it’s less inclusive.

    As usual, Dr. Bill has the best comment.

  31. Axismundi:
    I know the stereotype is of the inbred aristocrat, and I don’t claim to be an historian. But as a practical matter most peasants could go their whole lives without hardly meeting anyone from outside the local area. Aristocrats on the other hand commonly married off their daughters to other aristocrats hundreds or even thousands of miles away.

  32. The Church imposed the wide incest prohibitions in order to get Catholic Europe to have an intermixed aristocracy, so that they would view “Christendom” as their tribe. All things considered this was a beneficial program.

  33. True. Even having “tribes” at the level of nations was facilitated by the anti-incest program.

  34. “On some level, I instinctively want Muslims to stay out of *my* Europe, (which I have visited exactly three times for exactly three weeks), but I don’t feel the same anger when it comes to (Civilized, orthodox) Christian assylum seekers, and I do loath the idea of white Muslims taking over Europe.”

    Does anyone feel any anger at the thought of Christian asylum seekers? If we could trade one ME Christian over there for every Muslim we have here, we would be far better off. Plus, ME Christians were an extension of that Old Christendom that Arkansas Reactionary talks about which spanned from Britain in the far West to the Slavic lands in the East and contained the Balkans, North Africa, Anatolia, the Levant, Egypt, and Mesopotamia inbetween.

    As for white Muslims, when did Bosniaks decide to take over Europe?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: