A Chinese perspective on the problem of White pride

9 posts

The Acceptable Enemy

A Chinese perspective on the problem of White pride

By James Lawrence

When living in China a European cannot fail to be struck by the country’s intense nationalism; especially as it contrasts so sharply with the mixture of fear, disdain, and indifference towards national sentiment that prevails in the modern West.

When a drunken Western tourist was caught on video attempting to assault a Chinese w oman in Beijing, the result was uproar on the Chinese internet and a crackdown on foreign residents by the government ; contrast this with the reaction of the British establishment to the actual rapes of English girls b y Pakistani gangs, which was mainly concerned with not appearing “racist” to the compatriots of the offenders! A long list of similar contrasts could be made for almost every aspect of national life, and it would make for depressing reading indeed.

The Chinese state relentlessly promotes its national interests abroad, often whipping its citizens into a frenzy of public outrage whenever these are thwarted; meanwhile, America and several European countries pour away blood and treasure in foreign wars for the sake of humanitarian abstractions. The highly educated graduates of China’s best universities are if anything more nationalistic than the general population; whereas the dull-witted holder of a third-rate humanities degree in a Western country sees it as a mark of his social prestige to spit upon the patriotism of the “ignorant” lower classes.

Although the sight of Chinese fenqing (“angry youth”) snarling anti-Western slogans is undoubtedly not a pretty one, those of us who lament Europeans’ lack of national consciousness may be tempted to watch with a certain admiration and a despairing glance hindward at our own deluded “cosmopolitans.” After all, we know that the Chinese (like most non-Europeans) would never assent to their people’s demographic replacement by foreigners; and that alone makes their nationalism infinitely more sensible as a survival strategy than the self-destructive ruling ideology of the West. Moreover, many of us have long believed that our progressivists and multiculturalists do their evil out of guilt, self-hatred and “ethnomasochism” – afflictions of the mind refreshingly absent from non-European nations like the Chinese.

One might ask, “How can the Chinese be so full of national pride – even national arrogance – while Europeans are so self-abasing and masochistic?”

The answer, as I have come to see it through years of acquaintance with both Chinese and Europeans, is a counterintuitive one. It is that the Chinese, at some level, consider themselves inferior to Europeans; and in contrast, at some level, our “liberal” and “multiculturalist” Europeans still assume that they are the most superior race on Earth.

To defend this argument we must first remove the mask from the apparent national pride of the Chinese, to expose the (rather badly hidden) resentments and inferiority complexes underpinning it. It is true that, if asked for the basis of his national self-esteem, a Chinese will almost certainly cite the long history and rich culture of his civilisation; and indeed, had he been born two hundred years ago, we could take him at his word. But ever since the stagnation of the last imperial Chinese dynasty, and its overthrow from within in favour of modern ideologies (first nationalism, then communism) imported from the West, nowhere has traditional Chinese culture suffered such rending criticism and brutal desecration as in Mainland China; and as a result, the attitude of today’s Chinese towards their own heritage is still a decidedly ambiguous one. It would be no great exaggeration to say that it is treated as a set of museum-pieces, to be waved around as objects of pride when in the company of foreigners, but excoriated as relics of “feudalism” when said foreigners have left the room. At the very least, we can say with certainty that the conviction of the Chinese that their civilisation is superior to all others vanished a long time ago.

Rather than the positive achievements of Chinese civilisation, the true foundation of modern Chinese nationalism is an entirely negative one: “national humiliation” or guochi , meaning the century or so of external defeats and internal collapse that traditional China suffered after coming into contact with the modernised nations of Europe (and later, a modernised Japan). The more recent loss of faith in the future communist utopia (which, however mistaken, was at least a positive ideal) has meant that this collection of grievances is now perhaps the only thing holding the Chinese people together under their present government; and it has hence become all the more important that it be assiduously passed down to each new generation, resulting in a predictable mixture of inward status paranoia and outward nationalist arrogance. If a Chinese reacts with hysteria to even light criticism of his country by a European, it is not because he truly thinks that his country is wonderful and beyond criticism; but rather because where the European might see two people debating as equals, he sees a nightmare image of a proud and bullying foreigner looking down on his country from a position of superiority.

John Derbyshire, far more familiar with China than myself, describes this phenomenon thus:

“[A] burning, aching sense of racial inferiority. … [The Chinese] actually did create a great civilization, and believed it was the only one in the world; but it collapsed in a cloud of dust as soon as the white man touched it — a trauma from which the mainland Chinese have not, even now, really begun to recover. How could they? The communists work hard to keep that trauma alive, nursing and tending it with all the patient assiduity of hothouse gardeners. They have to — it's all they have going for them.”

Of course, it is not necessarily wrong that the Chinese should use such a powerful lever to mobilise their own population; and nor can it be supposed that they will never find a way back to a true appreciation of their traditional national culture. Indeed, the future of China is in far less doubt that that of Europe; but that is not really the subject of this essay. Of the Chinese, let us only further note that their ressentiment over past humiliations by Europeans are to a certain extent those of the global South as a whole; and what we say about the sources of their national feeling may apply in greater or lesser measure to blacks, Muslims, Mexicans etc, all of whom are noted by us on the Alternative Right to show a much higher level of nationalism than Europeans.

But we must now explore a truth of far more relevance to our own cause – namely, that the supposed “masochism” and “self-abasement” of our own elites rests on a European superiority complex and implicit idea of white supremacy that, in its essential substance, has changed very little from the days when Europeans colonised other races in the name of “civilisation” and “progress”.

It is strange that so many traditional conservatives and nationalists in Europe have persisted in attributing guilt, self-hatred and excessive humility to the most visibly smug and arrogant caste of human beings ever to walk the earth, our progressivist elites. To those of us on the Alternative Right, it is obvious that this parasitic class prizes social status above race and nation: if they profess to dislike white people, they are referring only to the “unenlightened”, “racist”, “conservative”, “tabloid-reading” classes of native Europeans seen as possessed of lower social status than themselves; and if they indulge in racial self-reproach for the benefit of minorities, it is only so that they can better criticise these perceivedly nationalistic classes of Europeans, who threaten them in a way minorities do not. Their self-flagellating humility is no less superficial (and misleading) than the arrogant bluster of the Chinese.

But while their hypocrisy is common knowledge, what of the racial pride underpinning their apparent supplication and tolerance, which so often goes unnoticed? One of the more obvious examples of this, which has been commented on before, would be the “liberal” assumption that we should throw open our gates to foreign peoples out of noble-minded charity – a piece of pompous claptrap that betrays its origins in the propaganda of the “white man’s burden,” which once exhorted us to colonise the same foreign peoples in the name of the same noble-minded charity.

But there is no smaller measure of racial pride in modern demands for Europeans to criticise their own heritage and “enrich” themselves through diversity – demands which, as every right-wing nationalist knows and complains, are never made of non-Europeans whether in Europe or in their own homelands. But the true significance of this is that Europeans, and Europeans alone , are supposed to be enlightened and civilised enough to cast aside the barbarism of national traditions and loyalties; we alone are supposed to be able to shed our own culture like a skin and see things with an objective eye; and it is we who are entrusted with the mission to lead the world by sacrificing our own interests (or at least those of our lower classes) to create the City on the Hill, the harmonious multi-racial society. There is a fairly straight line of continuity from such progressivist swill back to the old colonialist pretensions of Europeans, and perhaps all the way back to medieval European Christendom’s self-idealisation as the Kingdom of God on earth.

The only difference is that this racial arrogance has become far more obviously self-destructive to Europeans than once it was. The kind of pride that European elites once felt in possessing a true religion and superior culture now lies in possessing the ability to extirpate one’s own base racial instincts; an inner struggle that is closely associated with the struggle of progressives everywhere to overcome, marginalise and demographically replace their lower middle- and working-class European populations. Non-Europeans, predictably, are not held to the same standards of “civilisation”; their alien cultures must be preserved as props to demonstrate the cosmopolitanism of progressives, or else as sticks to beat those Europeans who are not yet cleansed of “racist” original sin. It is easy to see that in the progressivist narrative of good and evil, white people alone are the actors ; non-whites are those acted upon , either with tolerance by white “saints” or wickedness by white “sinners”, and their own duties or sins simply do not count for very much. (Even a black “saviour-figure” like Obama is little more than a public litmus test for the progressivist moral rectitude of his white voters.)

Now, the fact that our enemies are in reality arrogant rather than self-abasing may be a matter of some indifference to us; but the fact that the European populations they rule are full of the same toxic pride as themselves most certainly is not. It is because Europeans are so proud that they have never yet accepted the call to self-defence; and they would perhaps have to be pushed onto reservations in their own countries before they adopted the present attitude of the Chinese.

In particular, those of us who seek to rally Europeans to a simplistic racial tribalism (i.e. that practiced instinctively by non-Europeans) always seem to founder against this sort of pride. Europeans (who have dominated the globe for some five hundred years) are used to being told that their destiny is to lead the world, sacrifice themselves, build the shining City on the Hill; they cannot easily stomach the humiliation of “taking their own side” in the same way as non-whites! While multiculturalism is a piece of white racial arrogance hidden under a tissue of guilt and self-abasement, white racial tribalists advocate an egalitarian ideal (“all peoples, including Europeans, have the right to self-preservation”) swathed in unflattering views of non-whites that are essentially superficial to the doctrine. One reason why this ideal remains anathema to most Europeans is that it slights their pride: while progressives present a worldview in which white people are the only actors, this is reversed in the familiar narrative of the “rising tide of colour”, whereby foreign immigrants become the primary actors; Europeans are shifted into the role of those threatened, those besieged, those acted upon – at best, those who react .

Of course, we who oppose the progressivist desecration of Europe can only say what we find to be true; we cannot and should not make undue concessions to foolish complacency; and if any one catalyst is to eventually arouse resistance in Europeans, it will be the demographic invasion of Europe by the peoples of the South. But we only hobble our own arguments when we try to induce in our people the siege mentality of the Chinese, by painting some external enemy as the devil incarnate (as, for example, Faye does with Islam in Europe) alongside which our own elites appear merely as fools or collaborators. In reality, no external enemy would have been capable of reducing us to our present state were it not for the deliberate and hostile acts of European elites against their own populations; and if it is that we hold back from fully excoriating them for their crimes because they are members of our own race, let me say only that they have never yet extended the same courtesy to us!

Attacking some external “Other” only affronts the pride of Europeans by suggesting that they are (heaven forbid) threatened by non-whites, and allows progressives – those bullies par excellence – to pose as the benevolent defenders of “minority groups.” But if we reserve our antagonism for Europe’s own ruling caste (a logical counterpart to the Traditionalist attack on their false gospel of secularised Christianity), they can only respond by defending their own privileges and parasitism.

Thus I suggest that if our movement has need of an “Other,” the most deserving candidates are our European progressive elites themselves, who have been the direct cause of so many of the evils that have befallen Europe (I do not speak only of mass immigration and multiculturalism). We should excoriate them and their ideology, on moral grounds, without mercy; “progressive” must become a dirty word, befitting the foul thing it describes. This is not an apology for sickly lamentations along the lines that “we have brought everything on ourselves”. “We” are not “the white race as a whole” but those who wish to defend and restore Europe, while “they” who rule us are a separate ideological caste at war with the majority of Europeans; they evidently see themselves as such, and it is no innovation on our part to designate them accordingly. A major practical advantage of this line of attack is that the unspoken racial pride of our people, which sees only the heroism or depravity of white people as worthy of note, is not yet ready to accept any external enemy.
Niccolo and Donkey
Asterion Byssus Roland Thomas777 SweetLeftFoot mlad

This essay was difficult to read and he does raise a good point in suggesting that the modern white male in the West feels an inherent superiority for rejecting nationalist thought as opposed to the hypernationalism on display in China and amongst the Chinese Diaspora.

Trying to explain the lack of nationalism in the West vs the abundance of it in the East through psychology and historical narratives is fucking retarded. White countries are infected with Jews who finance media, academia, and politics against the White gentile majority, while in the East all of those fields are squarly in the control of the majority ethnicity.

That's all the explanation necessary. Western nationalism was killed by Jews.

President Camacho
I disagree... Jews only got the opportunity in business and politics by Anglo-Saxons who decided out of altruism to enfranchise them.

I thought the above article was quite good... I especially think this caption is relevant:
To use Freud's terminology, Westerners alone are assigned an "Ego" and "Superego"; third worlders can only be a reckless "Id".
Lawrence Auster calls this the Tripartite Structure (or Three Character Script) of Liberalism, and describes it here :
Don Johnson
Yes this really is all there is to it.

From a comment here:


Chia Chu
The East will follow this pattern. Morality appears as a growing dimension in the noosphere and foundational component of the emerging trans-human definition. Not unlike gravity that became a dominant factor in the formation of observable Universe. I am not sure if Vernadski was able to foresee this.

Anyway, on this last day of Hanukkah, I wanted to wish all members of this fascist swamp good health and merry spirits. You are obviously a dying kind but it is essential that you continue contributing to Globalization in whatever time you have left.

Hopefully, the great Chinese people will forgive me this brief stint. Sino-Judaic cooperation - based on their numbers and economic clout as well as on our ability to shape reality at higher levels of abstraction – is strategically positioned to advance humanity in the upcoming new phase of Enlightenment.

And, as always, we, the Jews, choose to lead not because it is easy but because it is hard.
I'm actually interested in the subject of Jewish achievement, I used to visit jinfo.org etc. If we are actually looking for the ultimate peaks of thought, of the greatest single thinker, then we must conclude:

Persians > Jews.

(But obviously Jews > Chinese.)

The Jews did not have a single architectonic thinker on the level of Avicenna, I think. The Persians only lacked the patient genius of Kepler, and so they did not develop mechanics (and consequently also missed out on the infintesimal revolution, the method of indivisibles rather than exhaustion, leading to modern analysis). For that reason alone they were behind - but they were equally heirs of the Ancient Greek tradition. As are... the Jews, in a sense.

Now the Jewish success in the 19th and (especially) 20th centuries was achieved in several, easily distinguished domains of thought:

  • Most of it had to do with that category of thinkers who achieved the widest diversity of analogy and conceptions, the heirs of Leibniz, Euler (the master of us all), G. Boole, Thomson (Lord Kelvin). At least two of the greatest thinkers of our age was of this "flavor" - I. M. Gel'fand, Grigory Margulis. I work in this area of mathematics, and so I know (and vigorously approve of) what they achieved. But one has to say that it is oddly constricted into the subject area of mathematics - there was never any Jewish thinker who achieved this "style" within and between all Thought, in general. The was never any Jewish counterpart to Leibniz, or Peirce, or even Quine. (Kripke was a purely technical genius, not a "philosophic" one like Frank Ramsey .) But there was a Persian counterpart: Avicenna.
  • The other category in which "Jews" succeeded in was in: purely technical genius, in unconventional and innovative areas. The greatest masters here were von Neumann (in algebraic techniques) and Norbert Wiener. Wiener in particular proved everything by deft manipulation of a single construction (Fourier transforms), by sheer power of symbolism to imitate another part of mathematics - the strategy is clear, since as the construction gets more complicated, a correspondence will come up between the problem and another (seemingly distant) problem. But neither Wiener nor von Neumann were particularly "original" mathematicians.
  • The old kind of genius involved a deep intuition into the approximate resemblances . The masters of physical theory, of an operational calculus, of the deep resemblances within mathematics were ones like: Barrow, Newton, Gauss, Heaviside, Poincare, Hilbert, E. Cartan, Heisenberg, Teichmuller et. In this area, the Jews were... surpassed by far by Germans alone, or just the French alone, or just the Americans alone. (I guess Witten can fit into my group here, but he is just one person.)
  • Einstein: he actually splits into two personalities - the Einstein of special relativity, and the Einstein of general relativity and early QM. The second fits into our preceding paragraph. The former actually owes more than half the credit to Mach (by his own admission), but is the kind of thinker who depends on critical power rather than deep intuition, such like Boscovitch (in his speculations), Boltzmann in similar speculations, or Mach himself.
(We have purposefully ignored people like Marx, Freud etc. because the topic was about thinkers - preferably good rather than harmful ones, but not those who were not thinkers at all .)

Jews have made very little contributions to technology in the broadest sense. Technical genius is not the same thing as originating a fundamentally new tool - and that goes also for mathematical methods. The master of this domain were: Babbage, Rowan Hamilton (his reformulation of mechanics), Grassmann, and so on.

Also, the greatest Jewish mathematician-scholars (like Salomon Bochner ) worship the Ancient Greeks (as they should), and Aristotle in particular - at least intellectually.

I bid you to contemplate the spectacle of Lipman Bers (who is Jewish, and a refugee from Nazism) developing the work of O. Teichmuller (fanatical Nazi), who even he considers the most creative mind of 20th century mathematics.

Now I don't at all agree with much of what Mencken says in general, and most of the reasons that he gives for belief... but he can really be wonderful when one agrees with him:

-- H. L. Mencken, Minority Report


IOW, Germans > Russians > Ants > Japanese > "Jews" > Chinese