The Bite of the Adder, or Can Only Whites be Racist?
by Michael Woodbridge
“Take up the White Man’s burden
And reap his old reward,
the blame of those ye better
The hate of those ye guard…”
WHEN THE United States relieved Spain of the responsibility for administering the Philippines, Kipling wrote these words to his friend Theodore Roosevelt, as a warning about the consequences of taking on an imperial role. Likewise, Mark Twain declared that the colours of the American flag should be changed from red, white and blue to black, blue and white, and that the field of stars should be replaced by a skull and crossbones.
It has often been said that only Whites can be racist and coloured people are innocent of any such, allegedly, uncharitable feeling. However, this article will go even further and argue that White folk should, far from denying their racism, consider whether they might claim sole possession of the term and so wear their racism, not with shame but with pride.
The comedienne Jo Brand, having taken a break from her usual sarcasm, dressed up as humour, was recently taken to task for saying, “My personal opinion is that you can’t be a racist towards White people,” adding, “You can be prejudiced about them but being prejudiced isn’t an illegal act whereas being racist can be.” When pressed further Miss Brand let slip her Marxist credentials by explaining, “I think the definition of racism also encompasses political power. So you can’t be Racist towards a group that’s politically more powerful than a minority. That to me is the correct definition of racism. I think you can be prejudiced against a group of people who are more powerful than you but I don’t think you can be racist towards them.”
By denying race as a biological fact, by implying that race is a social construct, Marxists, or more accurately neo-Marxists, portray race as simply a factor in the interplay of power politics. Unlike true socialists, neo-Marxists, such as Miss Brand refuse to acknowledge any natural hierarchy or organic order in human society. Their barren collectivism is the collectivism of the desert where one stone or grain of sand is much like any other. Theirs is the procrustean urge of the ‘Untermenschen’ to cut everything down to ‘a one size fits all’ world.
By contrast the collectivism of Racial Socialism is a collectivism which respects each individual as an unique being; never as an end in him or herself, as the universalists and sentimental liberals believe, but as a vital link between all that’s preceded him or her in evolution and all their progeny might yet become. In fact Racial Socialists would see their individual lifespan as no wider than the thickness which could be measured by a postage stamp on top of Nelson’s Column. White Racists can only view themselves as on the cusp of ever greater things in the future. Indeed, accompanying such racial consciousness comes the greatest of responsibilities. Other races may wither on the vine of evolution but White racial loyalists are duty bound to carry the beacon of evolution, lit by the Promethean fire of creativity: the fire which was stolen from heaven.
By respecting the true individual, Racial Socialists reject the sham liberalism of universal equality. How could we respect any individual or individuality if we refused to recognise or acknowledge variations in intelligence or ability? It’s only by discriminating between one individual or between one race and another that we can demonstrate any true respect. Sham liberals and neo-Marxists want us to respect all individuals and all races regardless of actual merit. True individual character and freedom is thus stood on its head and crushed by a mob of fanatical “politically correct” pandandrums. To do this they set up an imaginary ideal of some universal being, a monster even; sometimes ironically described as a disabled, lesbian mulatto; sometimes described as God.
Alongside Miss Jo Brand, also showing her tantalisingly but dirty neo-Marxist slip, is Miss Bahar Mustafa, ‘Student Union Welfare and Diversity Officer’ from Goldsmith’s University; a University that supplies teachers for our children by the way. Miss Mustafa claims that she can’t be racist because she is an ethnic minority woman. Miss Mustafa came to the attention of the ‘Evening Standard’ after she banned White people, unless they happened to be homosexual or lesbian, from an event which she claimed to be promoting equality. The theme was called “diversifying the curriculum.” She wrote to her ‘Facebook’ friends, “Invite loads of BME Women and non-binary people!! Also, if you’ve been invited and you’re a man and/or binary white PLEASE DON’T COME just because I invited a bunch of people and hope you will be responsible enough to accept this is a BME and ‘non-binary’ event only.”
For the less hip amongst us, BME translates as Black Minority Ethnic, and non-binary is “urban speak” describing those of indeterminate sexual identity. In a statement read out to fellow students Miss Mustafa said, “Ethnic minority women cannot be racist or sexist towards White men, because racism and sexism describe structures of privilege based on race and gender. Therefore women of colour cannot be racist or sexist, since we don’t stand to benefit from such a system. On this point Miss Mustafa is undoubtedly wrong because the whole structure of European culture and civilization was built by the Aryan/White Man, reaching this pinnacle of success by working as a team — as part of a self-identifying society — and it’s a success that is threatened as never before by mass-immigration, threatened as never before by the very same coloured benefit seekers with whom Miss Mustafa so obviously identifies.
Leaving aside Race and the Marxist argument that race is merely a proxy for the interplay of economic factors manipulated by greedy bosses, and leaving aside any biological foundation for racial variation as insignificant, we might consider another non-racial explanation for group identity — that mankind has a visceral need to organise itself into cultural groups regardless of blood loyalty.
Accordingly, the enemies of White identity have seized on the tribal nature of spectator sport to launch their counter attack.
A prime example of this is that whilst the controlled media has been busy promoting Negro footballers as national heroes, they have at the same time instituted the campaign, “Kick Racism out of Sport” under the Chairmanship of Lord Ouseley. Whilst ordinary mortals, and working class students in particular, may have to study hard for their university degrees, Lord Ouseley, of West Indian origin, and who to the best of our knowledge never got further than a Diploma from Catford College in the real world, has been awarded no less than 13 honorary degrees from universities as far apart as Brighton, London, Oxford, Sheffield and Edinburgh.
Another underhand trick of channelling the masses away from their natural inclination to favour racially loyal groups, has become obvious with the emergence of the United Kingdom Independence Party. Even some seasoned Nationalists have been bluffed into thinking they’re doing something clever by supporting UKIP and so avoiding the racist tag. The truth of course is that civic nationalism is grudgingly tolerated by the Establishment as a means of taming and neutering any opposition, just so long as it remains non-Racist.
Although as a people we can draw sustenance and inspiration from our history and culture, civic nationalism on its own spells disaster. It was civic nationalism which inveigled Britain and Germany to fight to the death in two “brother’s wars” — two world wars — which have brought our blood line as North Europeans to the verge of extinction.
Some progressive and intelligent minded people are understandably inclined to describe retarded civic nationalists as “Patriotards”; combining the word patriot with mental retardation. Although, American “culture” with its razzmatazz and superficiality, together with its military, gungho bombing of civilian populations, has done so much to undermine any serious concept of patriotism, the origin of the word ‘patriotism’ comes from Latin and has a racial connotation. Patriotism refers to one’s paternal blood line, so it would be shameful and unnecessary to discard the word altogether because of its American toxicity.
Another term that needs rescuing is “nation”. Left to itself nation has all too often lost its original biological connotation. Primarily it should mean a people, a folk, united by one blood, but in many minds it has come to signify no more than a convenient civil arrangement, as proposed by the Eighteenth Century purveyors of the “Social Contract” and found, for example, in the ‘American Declaration of Independence’.
To overcome this dilemma many racists like to distinguish themselves as “Racial-Nationalists” or “White-Nationalists”. However, the descriptive terms “Racial Socialist” and “Racial Socialism”, as advocated by Ben Klassen have the added advantage of clearing away any undeserved connection with civic nationalism. Racial Socialism recognises that “race is everything”.
A White man or woman are bound by their racial history, whether living in an inner-city ghetto or on the outer reaches of the Himalayas. An individual’s racial history signifies the society to which he genuinely belongs far beyond his fragmented surroundings. Of course that said, the idea of Racial Socialism doesn’t in itself necessarily preclude the concept of nationhood once we accept the full biological implication of the word ‘nation’. In fact whilst remaining international in scope, Racial Socialism has to work through national structures in practice — that is to say, it has to be organised culturally so as to provide resonance and a sense of identity for its adherents.
The term “racist” (as is well known) was allegedly first coined by Leon Trotsky or by the circle of Jews surrounding him. It was used initially as a derogatory word of abuse to protect the anti-Tsarist plotters from criticism. It was feared that once the overwhelming evidence of Jewish complicity in Bolshevik agitation became widely known the Russian people might become less pliable.
Nowadays, as we are increasingly aware, the term “racism” is used as an all embracing means of thought control, so effective that even the mildest verbal opposition to our national destruction is frequently preceded by the words, “I’m not a racist but…” So prevalent has the word racist become as a term of abuse that it would be futile to distance oneself from it. We could insist until we were pink in the face that we’re not nasty, misanthropic bigots but just genteel patriots, to no avail. Our enemies in the media occupying most of the strategic high ground, hate us and are out to destroy us verbally, if not in every other possible way. Therefore our only means of defence is to accept the description of ourselves as ‘racist’ and by so doing neutralise it. We must learn to wear it as a badge of honour.
When Nietzsche wrote ‘Thus Spake Zarathustra’ he included a chapter entitled, ‘The Bite of the Adder’. In it Zarathustra is bitten by a viper but before the reptile can slither away, Zarathustra calls it back saying, “I haven’t yet thanked you for waking me up.” Zarathustra then asks the snake whether it can afford to waste its venom on someone with a likeness to a dragon. The snake thus sucks the poison back out and goes on its way.
Likewise, if we prove ourselves impervious to verbal abuse by taking ownership of the term ‘racist’, our enemies won’t obtain any advantage by describing us as such. Enoch Powell, a twentieth century student of Nietzsche, understood this well. When, writing in the Sunday Telegraph he described the then leader of the Labour Party, Michael Foot, in glowing terms as a “racialist”.
During an era which had yet to succumb fully to “political correctness”, Michael Wharton wrote a regular column in the Telegraph under the nom de guerre, ‘Peter Simple’. Exuding a gentle and genuinely funny satire for fifty years, the ‘Peter Simple’ column became something of a moral lifeline for intelligent Racial-Nationalists. Indeed, Nick Griffin was privileged to be received by Michael Wharton at his home shortly before Wharton died in at the venerable age of 92 in 2006. The two events are not related.
A notable feature of ‘Peter Simple’ was his staunch advocacy of racialism of which he said, “We’re all racialists”, implying that anyone who failed to admit as much was suffering from self-delusion. The question as to what extent racism is a natural human feeling common to all peoples, and what extent it’s more specific to White/Aryan folk, bears further examination. The very fact that many North Europeans are perversely and uniquely hostile to their own racism strongly suggests that North Europeans are actually intensely aware of their own racial feelings, feelings they have nevertheless been conditioned to suppress by a hostile mass-media.
Among the supporters of what might be dubbed as the “racist but equal brigade” is American author Richard McCulloch. McCulloch is an ardent proponent of racial separate development. On his website ‘The Racial Compact’ he has drawn up a map in which he attempts to divide the United States into various racial compounds, compounds which would allow each distinct nation state to live exclusively with its own people. He writes in his ‘Charter of Racial Rights’: “All races have a right to independence and peaceful self-determination, to racial freedom and liberty, to separate development, to exclusive control of their own life and existence, their own future and destiny, free from domination, control or interference by other races.”
The Utopian dream continues, “All races have a right to racial integrity, to exclusivity, reproductive isolation and geographic separation, to be free, safe and secure from the racially destructive effects of racial inter-mixture and replacement.”
Of course many will find this vision extremely attractive as an ideal. Unfortunately, whilst ideals must be upheld if we are to evolve to higher forms they also have to be based on a realistic understanding of nature. The ideal of the “lion lying down with the lamb” is static and therefore a non-starter. In fact demographically Richard McCulloch’s map is already hopelessly out of date. The nature of life is essentially one of movement and evolution through struggle: not “poor, nasty brutish and short” as Thomas Hobbes would have us believe but joyful because of the fulfillment we find through our active participation.
Similarly, if the White enclaves as planned by ‘WIN’ and by ‘Western Spring’ are to succeed they must become the advanced guard of a reborn nation just as the Kibbutzim were in Israel and the Saxon or Norman Castles once were in England. The nature of our folk would soon become bored with a static society, however attractive the rural idyll might appear from the outside, a static society would rapidly become a stagnant society.
Interestingly, there’s an implied contradiction to the static society in an earlier McCulloch book of 1982, The Ideal and Destiny, when he says, given a choice most human beings would wish to evolve towards the European ideal of Aryan perfection as found in the statues of Michelangelo or Arno Brecker. We find some suggestion of this in mixed race Negroes with their hierarchy based on lightness of skin; Indians have their caste system of course, whereas wealthy Mongoloids sometimes pay for cosmetic surgery to make their eyes rounder: most races will have members who dye their hair blond from time to time.
Having dispensed with any serious suggestion that racism, as defined here, is in itself immoral we have to move on finally to consider whether it can be adopted as an exclusively White ideology. We’ve just seen how many coloured people attempt to emulate White features and it’s the contention of this article that those who object to White hegemony very often do so out of a negative resentment of the White man rather than a healthy appreciation of their own kind. This is a question often asked in the case of the Jews.
As Evola writes in ‘Racism and anti-Semitism’: “According to racial theory, Jews are not a race in the true sense, but a people of mixed race. The Semitic peoples, to which the Jews belong, are considered by Gobineau in his seminal ‘study’, ‘The Inequality of the Human Races’ to already be a mixed race derived from a cross between the White race and the Black race … this mixture would have been further complicated by other racial elements … At the time of the Diaspora and the last prophecies, other residual elements of Mediterranean ethnic and spiritual decadence coagulated into Judaism … if the Jews are liberated from the law, they automatically become a factor of dissolution. Thus, themselves without race, Jews then become the anti-race themselves without nation, they become anti-nation … They exert an uncanny corrosive force on everything that is differentiated, qualitative, bound by blood and tradition in politics, this culminates in the Judaizing Masonic ideology, with the consequent social and internationalist humanitarian myths.”
That may be the case with a significant number of influential Jews but many would hesitate to lay the entire responsibility for Pandora’s Box at Judah’s feet. No more could one honestly say that all anti-White racism is conceived as a product of spite and envy. In summary there is no conclusive evidence to say that the racism of non-European peoples, is necessarily swayed by anything other than a natural racial loyalty on their part.
Where the White Man might claim a more exclusive racist identity than the rest is in his place at the forefront of evolution. The White race which has reached for the stars is essentially aspirational. The White man loves truth above all things and is a fearless innovator. If the White/Aryan race and racism is superior to other group loyalties it is because of its ability to wed that loyalty to a moral code, a code that embraces the concept of eugenics and aspires to become a new species.
* * *
Source: Western Spring