jenab6 (jenab6) wrote,

A Re-Assessment of White Supremacy

Talking back to Stefan Molyneux, once again.

Posturing ourselves as politically correct, are we? "Contrary to what my detractors say, I am NOT a white supremacist." How edgy!

I might play Devil's Advocate and argue for why you should be a white supremacist, if you can by any means qualify for that status. Points I might introduce in argument include:

1. The white race is the first race to climb the sky, and we are still the race that has gone farthest, done the most, and leads the next most accomplished race by about fifty years.

2. Whites did spaceflight before anyone knew that it could be done. Asians, having before them the proof of the possibility of spaceflight, which whites provided, and having the benefit of later and more advanced technology, most of which whites also provided, tinkered around until they had found a way to imitate whites and follow in our footsteps.

Most of the Earth's brown and black races can't follow those skyward trails, not even after whites have shown the way.

3. This universe barely tolerates life, and astronomical observations today suggest that intelligent life is very, very rare. If the universe is ever to become a place generally characterized by life, by civilization, rather than by sterility, then the white race is the race that is most likely to make it happen. If whites disappear from existence, then what may be the only living world in the cosmos might not survive the next billion years, and, when it goes, the universe will be entirely a dead thing.

4. Sure, polar bears and grizzly bears are each adapted to their environments, just as whites and blacks are adapted to theirs. But that doesn't imply equality. In the case for bears, there might by happenstance be an overall near equality. But let us consider whether this is true of the races of mankind.

Whites are adapted to high culture, advanced technology, high-trust societies, K-strategy child rearing, and a peculiar balance of the life of the body and the life of the mind.

Blacks are adapted to low culture, rudimentary technology, low-trust societies, r-strategy child rearing, and they are not particularly invested in the life of the mind.

The word "superiority" is meaningless without a context. Superior in what way? Superior for what purpose? When the context is high culture, advanced technology, high trust society, etc., then whites are, indeed, superior. If you posit that Africa's relatively primitive culture as "just as good" as Western Civilization, then you might argue for a general, overall equality of whites and of blacks.

On the other hand, there is probably something wrong with the premise that African and Western cultures are equally good. Some cultures are better than others. Better how? Better in terms of what they can do, what their culture has made possible, by what powers, what opportunities, what possibilities their civilization has brought into existence, which had never existed before.

The ideas of the white supremacists do seem to have some justification.

Having said that, however, the ideology of white supremacy contains the idea that because whites are superior (in the ways that matter most), the white race should rule over and organize the lives of other races. With that, I certainly disagree. But the reason I disagree is that shouldering that burden, the so-called white man's burden, would hobble us, and we'd do better for ourselves not to take it up.

Whites do not owe non-whites the benefit of ruling over them. It is something that we should not do, even if it were a safe and inexpensive thing to do. As history has proved, furthermore, it both costly and dangerous to bring non-whites among us even for charitable reasons. Inasmuch as the survival of our own race should be our highest value, it follows that we should neither enslave nor shelter non-whites.

  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded