Towards a Definition of White Barbarism

10 posts

White people are not cool. This is obvious. The standard right wing explanation is to cite the liberal meme of, "Everything is racist!!!" I am not convinced however. Within the liberal worldview whites are specialized by class. Middle and upper middle class whites are supposed to be SWPL. Working class whites are supposed to strive and moan about the economy which is of course exclusively the fault of Republicans (" The party of the rich.") Their kids will fight and die overseas for Democracy and Freedom. Good little proles they are. Underclass whites should be wiggers (i.e. Negroized) and rap about overcoming oxycontin addiction.

While SWPLs harp endlessly on white privilege they seem to believe in its benefits secretly. Much of their disgust with white proles seems to be based on a mistaken belief that whiteness is somehow a designator of middle class values rather than an arbitrarily defined umbrella term for many different ethnic groups. "Look at these uncouth Appalachians living in filth. They're white, what's their excuse?"

The Right seeks to racialize the Liberal Elite's bigotry towards certain white groups (WASPs and Jews vs. 'ethnic whites') but this is a mistake. Those groups which we could call white barbarians I find are defined by categories more specialized than race. Most notably a commitment to clan, region or religion. In other words, collective identities which are too micro and too closed off to be compatible with the universalism inherent to liberalism and therefore the dream of an inclusive mass society. The following list contains some examples of white barbarian groups. Posters are encouraged to contribute to this list.

Boston Irish (Extinct)

My father grew up in the Dorchester neighborhood of Boston which was almost exclusively working class Irish Catholic. Hollywood movies like The Town (about Charlestown) or The Departed (loosely based off Southie gangster Whitey Bulger) give the impression that the experiences of working class Irish Catholics in Boston was a pretty universal one from neighborhood to neighborhood. On a day to day basis this was largely true but what all of these films fail to note is that people hated each other based solely off neighborhood affiliation. There was no overarching community based on Irishness or the Roman Catholic faith. A guy from Dorchester who wandered into a Southie bar was likely to get his head kicked in and vice versa. Even within the different neighborhoods there were loyalties based off the streets where people lived. Kids from one end of the bloc were likely to brawl with kids from the other end. People didn't even identity themselves by neighborhood but rather by which parish they attended. Even to this day my father has an intrinsic hatred for, "that Southie thing." He once told me that guys from Southie used to even have a particular gait which differentiated them from guys from Dorchester or Charlestown.

Contrast that with the plastic paddy bullshit which passes for Boston Irish identity these days: a bunch of suburban faggots who get shitty in Southie for Saint Patrick's Day. If they wanted to be authentic, kids from Weymouth would be braining kids from Peabody on sight.

Southern U.S. Scots Irish

The Hatfield-McCoy feud is the best known example of Scots Irish American clannishness. Forget North vs. South, Blacks vs. Whites, or even Grady McWhiney's Celts vs. Anglos in the New World narrative; this was about family against family for generations.


When Somali pirates overtook a Russian merchant vessel they figured they'd either make off with some easily gotten loot or live out a short sentence in a cushy prison, as they did in South Korea . Instead Russian Marines set them adrift on an inflatable boat without any navigational equipment. They lost radio contact within an hour . When questioned about this harsh tactic, Colonel Alexei Kuznetzov responded, "Why should we feed some pirates?" International human rights law? Fuck. That. Shit.


Other people on this forum are far better informed on the multi faceted civil war of the 1990s than myself but like the conflict in Northern Ireland, when white people start to kill each other over land and religion, liberals get very confused as to where their loyalties lie. It is especially confusing when there is no history of colonialism to blame.
That's stupid. Why?

So far I would say that white barbarism is defined as a preference for clan, region or religion over national identity (and therefore allergic to supranational ideals like universalism and human rights) plus a propensity towards violence as a solution to most problems.

Because to outsiders Southie is seen as synonymous with being of Irish ancestry and from Boston. Of the clannishness mentioned, Southie was by far the worst offender and people from Southie are notorious for being extremely arrogant about their small slice of real estate which only has one section that's actually nice (on the harbor). My parents went to a party held by some neighbors from Leeds, UK and when another neighbor (who grew up in Southie) overheard my father telling a story about his childhood he said, "Dorchester? That's where we used to throw our trash." My English neighbors were of course completely perplexed by this nevermind the fact that both my father and our uncouth Southie-originating neighbor hadn't lived in Boston proper for decades. Some guy actually used the same trash throwing comment to me at a party when I mentioned that I had grown up in Hyde Park (he was from Roslindale). To see that sort of hyper localized idiocy from a 20something was particularly absurd.

I've noticed an imitation of this localism in lots and lots of kids I grew up with. I think it has to do with white kids with wigger psychology (not necessarily wiggers) who want to partake in a sort of big city mystique, and that includes celebration of how much the city sucks. IE white kids bragging about how many cars get broken into in their neighborhood, but they 'love' it anyway.


There's a primitive dimension to the Ulster Scots, the Irish, the Southern Slavs and some other peoples but I don't think they're properly barbaric. Barbarism implies an absence of emblematic political forms and affinities for cultural modes that are in any way modern. One of Hitler's points of agreement with Spengler I believe (at least what can be gleaned from the ''Table Talk'' statements) is that the Russians were basically barbaric people - landlocked peasants who were illiterate, wildmen who lived off the Steppe, Oriental aborigines, and assorted other elements who weren't savages like indigenous Africans or Apaches or ''fellaheen'' races who once, in the historical past were the stock of mighty cultures in their own right, but who nonetheless couldn't be assimilated into any type of dynamic and future-oriented European political/cultural form.

Scots themselves assimilated into the ruling structure (culturally and politically) of the United Kingdom and their fortunes as the British Empire reached its zenith reflected this. The average Scotsman might be crude and unruly and uncouth, but his culture nonetheless elevates his otherwise ''primitive'' breeding and stock - he must possess a type of psychological and intellectual and instinctive plasticity for this to be the case.

When I think of modern ''White Barbarians'' I think of Serbs, Poles, Muscovites, and people like this. Maybe that's my own prejudice but I don't think that's the case.

Bob Dylan Roof

Tribalism is a huge factor for white ethnics, but it isn't necessary. Scandinavian farmers and the descendants of German peasants in the Midwest lack most of the hallmarks of white tribalism, which is interesting because representative democracies necessarily reward tribalism and punish individualism, because tribalism allows communities and individuals to circumvent institutional restrictions on political power.

White barbarism is too relevant of a subject for the right to allow it to be monopolized by liberals, who selectively promote the idea when it suits their agenda, similar to the way the more vulgar white racists focus exclusively on non-white barbarism. Ironically, it has been right-wing thinkers like Banfield, and later Murray, who have put together the most complete sociological data on white barbarism.

What distinguishes white barbarism from non-white barbarism in the U.S. is that the former exhibits a diverse range of redeemable qualities while the latter's value resides almost exclusively in its brash, aggressive vitality. The Irish were great writers, the Eastern Europeans possess engineering and mathematical genius, the Scandinavian farmer is predisposed to creating and sustaining moral social order, and German peasants are good at drinking beer and eating cheese. But what makes white barbarism relevant for the right is what it shares with non-white barbarism (excepting Scandinavian farmers): brash, aggressive vitality. Assimilated whites are simply too over-civilized and neurotic to be of any use in the struggle for cultural rebirth. As Stendhal wrote: "This, alas! is the curse of overcivilization! At age twenty, a young man's soul, given some degree of education, is a million miles from spontaneity, without which love is often the most boring of responsibilities."


Where does the nascent hipster racism come into play with white barbarism?

Could the new men of the Riff Raff type be here to end the expressions of white barbarism through deconstructions of wigger socio-mnenomics presented in rap music?

C'mon guys, let's show these Gringo WASPs a thing or two!