What does it mean to be white?
I maintain that the categories by which people are grouped so broadly is a deficient American concept, reflective of a somewhat true reality, but an isolated one. There is a character commonality between white Americans, at least some white Americans, regardless it seems of their ancestral roots, be they Slavic, Germanic, Latin, Nordic, etc. We misinterpret this to mean that there is some great self-contained racial commonality between those people with indigenous heritage in Occidental lands. The problem is this idea breaks down in practice when placed in a broad observation.
Consider the Slavs. Is there some racial mirror that can be held up before the Pole and the Russian? In these two nations, these two branches of Slavdom, we see very different peoples. The same can be said of the Croats and Serbs. Does one expect them to reconcile the temperamental differences between them, dismissing old hatreds and hostilities as merely the product of political or military happenstance? And this is only if we take Slavs, consider the gulf between a German and a Greek! Both are Occidental peoples, but where is their commonality? Perhaps they share more than a Swede and a Zulu but this isn’t saying much. If we think of race like the roots of a tree, we might say with every offshoot there opens a yawning chasm into which we may pour indifference or enmity.
But if our commonality rests not in the genetic makeup of our societies (which is indeed diversified) and the order by which we organize and express ourselves, where does it lie? Where is the ‘white’ race?
First, let me take some words from well-known American Identitarian Jared Taylor:
First, I think Taylor should point out that there would not be much solidarity between American and British blacks if brought together. I have dealt with both, and they are very different, especially if you compare American Southern blacks to British blacks. Let us remember that for all that is made of Europeans’ propensity to kill each other, the African continent has a long history of black on black genocide.
Taylor is correct in saying that whites in America are not as united as blacks, but this makes sense when you take into account the north/south divide, or more accurately, the south and middle/eastwest divide that is more pronounced among whites (who fought over slavery) than blacks (who were all slaves). He might see this as a political construct, I see it as a racial difference. American whites experience geographic commonality only within these prospective spheres, and so you only see hints of solidarity within these prospective spheres. The gulf between a white in San Francisco and a white in Jackson is almost as deep as that between a German and a Greek! The explanation of how this can be comes from Evola:
“I argued that an exhaustive racial theory has to take all three elements into account by examining race in its threefold manifestation: as race of the body, race of the character, and race of the spirit.”
Yes, genetically there may be little substantive difference between these two American races, but somehow there has sprung two races of the character from this European colonization and then sociopolitical course of the United States, and they are unique. Where the American Identitarian movement falls down I feel is trying to mesh these two characters into one based on bodily race alone. This makes me sympathetic to Southern secessionists who take a racial line.
Surely there must be some ‘fellow-feeling’ that we can capture along the axis of this Occident however. I believe the answer is spiritual. Evola and others made the case that the peoples who settled Europe had a common ancestry close to what he called the ‘Arctic Seat’, and speculated that the Indians and others might actually share this lineage, though in a different direction. This origin impacted a European spirituality, giving it a varied Paganism among both tribes in the north, and empires in the south. All eventually fell to Christianity. From Vladivostok to Lisbon, Paganism was utterly defeated, or rather ‘surpassed’ in the spiritual consciousness of the Occident which received the God-man as its final revelation prior to the onset of global downfall with the dawn of the new ‘Iron Age’. I sometimes call this the ‘blood pact’ of Christendom. Divided, certainly, and not long after its inception upon the still-beating heart of Rome, but both Slav and Brit accepted as God this obscure preacher from across the Mediterranean. In this, we had some solidarity, broken in places, fulfilled to a beauty in others.
Alas, for now these roots, the innate Hyperborean attraction to the God who became man and walked amongst us, remains buried in a tomb below the subconscious. Despite exceptions in some geographical areas, Occidental man has in his own hubris and under the hypnotic influence of illusionary ‘Progress’, turned his back on his ancestral spiritual journey. He thinks himself above it all, when in reality he is now below it all and suffering due to the fact. This was predicted by the Indian Vedic prophecy so it comes as no surprise. Why should there be a common feeling a fellowship among whites when a whole section of their racial identity has been stripped away?
But then with the anticipation of the spiritual infusion that may flood our senses at the death of this age, what is to sustain any peace and sense of even estranged brotherhood amongst white men in the here and now?
I give it you in letter form: